^n^fli 


U--^-t:ryi^J 


UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 


SCHOOL  OF  LAW 
LIBRARY 


^^ 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Arciiive 

in  2007  with  funding  fronr 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


littp://www.arcliive.org/details/digestbriefbookoOOIiawl<iala 


GAMMEL'S  EDITION 

A  DIGEST  AND  BRIEF  BOOK 

OF 

TEXAS 

OIL  AND  GAS 

DECISIONS 


BY 

LYNDSAY  D.  HAWKINS 

OF  THE  DALLAS  BAR 


AUTHOR.  "APPELLATE  CIVIL  JURISDICTION 

(TEXAS)." 


AUSTIN.  TEXAS 

GAMMEL'S  BOOK  STORE 

1922. 


Copyright  1922 

By 

Lyndsay  D.  Hawkins. 

T 


To  My  Wife 
L.  D.  H. 


805288 


PREFACE. 


This  book  is  a  growth.  Not  until  the  notes  had 
assumed  the  proportions  of  a  book,  and  publication 
was  urged  by  many  lawyers  who  had  seen  the  manu- 
script, was  its  publication  decided  upon.  However, 
it  is  submitted  to  the  Texas  Bar  in  the  confident 
belief  that  it  will  be  found  valuable  to  those  wlio 
may  be  confronted  with  the  many  and  varied  prob- 
lems growing  out  of  litigation,  contracts,  leases,  etc., 
in  connection  with  the  oil  and  gas  business. 

The  book  is  not  intended  to  be  a  treatise  on  the 
subject,  but  is  intended  to  furnish  accurate  and 
pointed  citations  to  recent  and  leading  cases,  for  the 
convenience  of  the  busy  practitioner. 

All  the  cases  cited  under  a  given  proposition  have 
bearing  thereon,  tliough,  in  some  instances  may  not 
directly  support  the  propositions,  and  may,  in  rare 
instances,  even  contradict  the  proposition.  This  is 
due  to  the  circumstances  under  which  the  work 
developed,  and  to  the  desire  to  cite  all  available 
cases  under  each  proposition.  It  is  suggested  that 
reference  be  had  to  the  cases  themselves  wherever 
possible. 

Because  of  the  fact  that  the  law  of  oil  and  gas 
is  in  its  formative  stage,  and  a  great  number  of 
decisions  maj'  be  expected  from  our  courts  as  the 
development  of  our  mineral  resources  progresses, 
by  the  insertion  of  a  sufficient  number  of  blank  pages 
for  the  purpose,  provision  has  been  made  whereby 
each  owner  of  the  book  readily  may  keep  the  cita- 
tions brought  down  to  date.     It  is  to  be  hoped  that 


Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions.  5 

those  who  use  the  book  will  realize  the  importance  of 
thus  keeping  it  abreast  with  the  decisions. 

A  feature  of  the  book  which,  it  is  believed,  will 
add  much  to  its  value,  is  the  comprehensive  index 
at  its  conclusion. 

With  the  hope  that  the  service  the  book  may 
render  will  vindicate  its  publication,  it  is  respect- 
fully submitted; 

LYXDSAY  D.  HAWKINS. 
March  20,  1922. 


Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 


1.     As  to  time  a  lease  Avill  run  if  no  time  limit 
is  stipulated. 

Owens  vs.  Corsicana  Pet.  Co.,  169  S.  W.,  200;   222 

S.  W.,  154. 
Nat'l  Oil  &  Pipe  Line  Co.  vs.  Teel,   67   S.   W.,   545 

(affirmed,  95  Texas,  586;   68  S.  W.,  979). 
Thornton,   Par.   138. 
Todd  vs.  Mfgr's.  Light  &  Heat  Co.,  110  S.  E.,  446. 

(rule  against  perpetuities). 
Eastern  Oil  Co.  vs.  Beatty,  177  Pac,   105-106. 
Pratt  Consol.  Coal  Co.  vs.  Vintson,   85   So.,   502. 
Smith  vs.  Guffey,   202  Fed.,   108. 
Guffey  vs.  Smith,  237  U.  S.,  101. 
Consumers  Gas  Trust  Co.  vs.  Window  Glass  Co.,  70 

N.  E.,  366. 
New    American    Oil    &    Mining    Co.    vs.,    Troyer,    76 

N.  E.,  253;  77  N.  E.,  732. 
New  American  Oil  &  Mining  Co.  vs.  Wolff,  76  N.  E., 

255. 
Ohio  Valley  Oil  &  Gas  Co.  vs.  Irvin  Dev.  Co.,  212 

S.  W.,  110. 
Plumber  vs.  So.  Oil  Co.,  214  S.  W.,  8  96. 
McKay  vs.  Tally,  220  S.  W.,  167. 
S.  W.  Oil  Co.,  vs.  McDaniel,  175  Pac,  920. 
Kachelmacher  vs.  Laird,  110  N.  E.,  933. 
Ohio  Fuel  Oil  Co.  vs.  Greenleaf,  99  S.  E.,  274. 
Indiana  Rolling  Mill  Co.  vs.   Gas  Supply  &  Mining 

Co.,  76  N.  E.,  640. 
Consumers  Gas  Trust  Co.  vs.  Littler,  70  N.  E.,  363. 
La  Fayette  Gas  Co.  vs.  Kelsey,  74  N.  E.,  7. 
.ndiana  Nat.  Gas  Co.  vs.   Beales,   76  N.   E.,   520. 
Johnson  vs.  Armstrong,  94  S.  E.,  753. 
Warren  Oil  &  Gas  Co.  vs.  Gilliam,  207  S.  W.,  698. 
On  the  general  question  of  notice  to  lessee,  before 

termination,    see    above    cases    and    Wapa    Oil    & 

Dev.  Co.  vs.  McBride,  201  Pac,  984.  And  see,  also, 

Benavides  vs.  Hunt,  79  Texas,  p.  397;  15  S.  W.,  p. 


7  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

401-402.      Also,   Satterfield   vs.    Galloway,    234    S. 
VV.,  448.      Also,  Towel  vs.  Fluhartv,  203  Pac,  703. 

£ee  Notes  33b,  94,  337,  417. 

2.  An  oil  lease  should  be  recorded  because  it 
"concerns  lands,"  and  because  it  "relates  to  real 
estate. ' ' 

R.  S.,  Arts.  6823,  6827. 

'3.  An  assignment  of  rentals  under  an  oil  lease 
should  not  be  recorded. 

Farmers'  &  Merchants'   State  Bank  vs.  Tullos,   211 

S.  W.,  847. 
See  Curlee  vs.  Anderson,  235  S.  W.,  622   (royalties 

and  rentals). 

4.  A  well  is  not  ''commenced"  until  the  actual 
boring  in  the  ground  begins. 

Wltherspoon  vs.  Staley,  156  S.  W.,  557. 

See  Forney  vs.  Ward,  62  S.  W.,  108. 

Knight  Bros.  vs.  Standard  Oil  Co.,  84  So.,  653. 

But  see  Terry  vs.  Texas  Co.,  228  S.  W.,  1019. 

See  Notes  217,  2  20. 

5.  As  to  the  effect  of  the  failure  of  a  .joint  owner 
of  land  to  sign  a  lease,  see 

Griffin  vs.  Bell,  202  S.  W.,  1034. 

Herndon  vs.  Meadows,  103  S.  E.,  404,  on  whether 
contract  is  not  incomplete  where  all  negotiated, 
and  see,  also,  Watson  vs.  Cloud,  225  S.  W.,  807 

Gulf  Ref.  Co.  vs.  Hayne,  86  So.,  891. 

See  Notes  22,  93. 

6.  As  to  whether  a  nominal  consideration  will 
support  art  oil  lease,  see 


8  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions, 

Morris  vs.  T.  P.  C.  &  O.  Co.,  228  S.  W.  981. 

Nat'l  Oil  &  Pipe  Line  Co.  vs.  Teel,   95   Texas  586; 

68  S.  W.,  979. 
Pierce  Fordyce  Oil  Assn.  vs.  Woodrum,   188  S.  W., 

249,  citing  Kansas  Supreme  Court. 
Griffin  vs.  Bell,  202   S.  W.,  1036. 
Johnson  vs.   Russell,   220  S.   W.,   352. 
Nolan  vs.  Young,   220  S.  W.,   154. 
Bost  vs.  Biggers,  222  S.  W.,  1112. 
See  Note  37. 

7.  Liability  for  rent  under  oil  and  gas  lease. 

Kunkle  vs.  Gas  Co.,  33  L.  R.  A.,  847. 

Note  to  Coal  &  Coke  Co.  vs.  Sharp,  52  L.  R.  A.   (N. 

S.),    968. 
See  Notes  48,  69,  260. 

8.  Eights  of  parties  to  oil  or  gas  lease  forfeited 
for  default  in  payment  to  be  made  in  lieu  of  develop- 
ment. 

Frank  Oil  Co.  vs.  Bellview  Gas  &  Oil  Co.,  43  L.  R.  A. 

(N.  S.),  487. 
See  Notes  43,  44,  45,  75,  128.  157.  234. 

9.  Enumeration  of  questions  dealt  Avith  in  L.  R. 
A,  notes : 

L.   R.  A.,   1917  D,   1124;    43   L.   R.  A.    (N.   S.).   487. 

10.  Re^ervation  of  minerals  in  a  deed. 

Moore  vs.  Henderson,  105  S.  E.,  903. 
L.  R.  A.,   1918    A.,  487. 
Hale  vs.  Grow,  106  S.  E.,  409. 
Tillotson  vs.  Martin,  193  Pac,  97  5. 
Lyles  vs.  Dodge,  228  S.  W.,  316.      (Effects  a  sever- 
ance.) 


9  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

Frost  Johnson  Lmbr.  Co.  vs.  Nabors  Oil  &  Gas  Co., 

88  So.,  723. 
See  Notes  79,  116,   235,  246. 

11.  Duty  of  lessee   to   minimize   damages   from 
acts  of  sub-lessee. 

L.  R.  A.,  1918    C,  907. 

12.  Specific  performance   of   contract   to  deliver 
product  from,  or  interest  in,  mines. 

L.  R.  A.,  1918,  E,  623,  627. 

Bassell  vs.  West  Va.  Cent.  Gas  Co.,  103  S.  E.,  116; 
12  A.  L.  R.,  1398,  and  note. 

13.  Partition  of  oil  and  gas  in  place. 

Campbell  vs.  Lynch,  L.  R.  A.,  1919  B,  1070. 
But  see  Gas  Co.  vs.  Ankrom,  5  A.  X-.  R.,  1157. 
See  Notes  18,  36,  106. 

^  14.  As  to  whether  the  grantee  of  part  of  land 
covered  by  a  lease  lis  entitled  to  royalties  in 
absence  of  special  agreement  to  that  effect,  see 

Gillette  vs.  Mitchell,  214  S.  W.,  619. 
Campbell  vs.  Lynch,  L.  R.  A.,  1918  B,  1074. 
But  see  Pittsburg   &  W.  Va.,  Gas  Co.  vs.   Ankrom, 
5  A.  L.  R.,  1157. 

15.     As    to    whether    a    lessee  may  maintain  an 
action  in  ejectment,  see 

Guffey  vs.  Smith,  237  U.  S.,  101;   35  Sup.  Ct.  Rep.. 

526;  59  L.  Ed.,  856;   202  Fed.,  106. 
Gould  on   Waters,   Sec.   291,  cited  in   Texas  Co.  vs. 

Daugherty,  107  Texas,  226;  176  S.  W.,  717;  L.  R. 

A.,  1917  F,  989. 


10  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

JCirk  vs.  Mattier,  41  S.  W.,  p.   254. 

Huselton  vs.  Liggett,  202  Pac,  972   (possession). 

See  Note  154. 

--.  16.  The  effect  of  a  transfer  by  one  royalty  owner 
of  part  of  his  rig:hts  upon  the  remaining  royalty 
interests. 

Hatfield  vs.  Falloway,  113  S.  W.,  853.  \. 

"^  17.  As  to  payment  of  royalties  accruing  before  a 
transfer. 

Burden  vs.  Thayer,  44  Mass.,  76;   37  Am.  Dec,  117. 

18.  As  to  the  eft'ect  of  partition  of   land  upon 
which  a  lease  is  outstanding,  see 

Campbell  vs.  Lynch,  L.  R.  A.,  1918  B,  pp.  1070,  1075 
Gas  Co.  vs.  Ankrom,  5  A.  L.  R.,  1157. 
Gillette  \'S.  Mitchell,  214  S.  W.,  619. 
See  Notes  13,  36. 

19.  As  to  lease  covering  tracts  of  land  owned  by 
different  persons  in  severalty,  see 

Gas  Co.  vs.  Ankrom,  5  A.  L.  R.,  1157. 
L.  R.  A.,  1917  D.,  p.  1124. 
Lynch  vs.  Davis,  92  S.  E.,  427. 

20.  Commingling  by  lessee  of  oil  from  tracts  of 
different  owners,  as  affecting  rights  of  each  owner, 

Russell  vs.  Producers  Oil  Co.,  S3  So..  773. 

21.  For  rule  as  to  homestead,  see 
Southern  Oil  Co.  vs.  Colquit,  69  S.  W.,  169. 


11  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

Griffin  vs.  Bell,  202  S.  W.,  1034. 
McEntire  vs.  Thomason,  210  S.  W.,  568. 
McKay  vs.  Lucas,  220  S.  W.,  172,  last  sentences. 
Texas  Co.  vs.  Daugherty,  107  Texas,  226;  176  S.  W., 

717;  L.  R.  A.,  1917  F,  989. 
Maynard  vs.  Gilliam,   225   S.   W.,   818. 
Davis  vs.  Texas  Co.,  232  S.  W.,  p.  5  60. 

22.  May  a  co-tenant  develop  oil? 

Burnham  vs.  Hardy  Oil  Co.,  147  S.  W.,  330,  336. 
Compton  vs.   Gas  Co.,   89   Pac,   1039;    10   L.   R.  A. 

(N.  S.),  787. 
Beigler  vs.  Brenneman,  86  N.  E.,  597. 
Bessho  vs.  General  Pet.  Corp.,  199  Pac,  22. 
See  Morrison,  pp.  46-48. 
Laughner  vs.  Wally,  112  Atl.,  105. 
Gulf  Ref.  Co.  vs.  Carroll,  145  La.  299;   82  So.  277. 
York  vs.  Warren  Oil  &  Gas  Co.,  229  S.  W.,  114. 
Virginia  Coal  &  Iron  Co.  vs.  Richmond,  104  S.  E., 

805. 
See  Note  5. 

23.  "Abandoninent"    and    ''forfeiture"    distin- 
guished; defined. 

Fisher  vs.  Crescent  Oil  Co.,  178  S.  W.,  905. 
Davis  vs.  Texas  Co.,  232  S.  W.,  549,  563. 
Marnett  Oil  &  Gas  Co.  vs.  Munsey,  232  S.  W.,  867. 
Millar  vs.  Mauney,  234  S.  W.,  p.  503. 
Blackwell  Oil  &  Gas  Co.  vs.  Whited,  196  Pac,  688. 
See  Notes  45,   57,  157. 

24.  What  is  required  to  amount  to  abandonment. 

Emery  vs.  League,  72  S.  W.,  603. 

Blackwell  Oil  &  Gas  Co.  vs.  Whited,  196  Pac,  688. 

Grundy  vs.  Smith,  230  S.  W.,  1048. 

See  Notes  45,  57,  120,  310. 


12  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

25.  Oil  lease  contracts  are  constraed  most  favor- 
ably to  the  lessor. 

Leonard  vs.  Caruthers,  236  S.  W.,  189. 

See  briefs  of  parties,  L,.  R.  A.,  1917  B,  1185. 

Emery  vs.  League,  72  S.  W.,  603. 

Aycock  vs.  Reliance  Oil  Co.,  210  S.  W.,  848. 

Hickernell  vs.  Gregory,  224   S.   W.,   691,   695. 

Steelsmith    vs.    Gartlan,    45    W.    Va.,    27;    29   S.    E., 

978;   44  L.  R.  A.,  107;  cited  in  Owens  vs.  Corsi- 

cana  Pet.  Co.,  169  S.  W.,  p.  194. 
Kolachny  vs.  Galbreath,  38  L.  R.  A.   (N.  S.).  451. 
Decker  vs.  Kirlicks,  216  S.  W.,  385. 
Prowant  vs.  Sealy,  187  Pac,  235. 
Higgins  vs.  Daley,  99  Fed.,  606;  48  L.  R.  A.,  320. 
McKee  vs.  Thornton,  192  Pac,  212. 
For  discussion  of  reason  and  application  of  this  rule, 

see  dissenting  opinion  in  Brown  vs.  Wilson,  L.  R. 

A.,  1917  B,  p.  1204. 
See   also   Ohio   Oil   Co.   vs.    Burch,    124   N.    E.,    787, 

holding  construed  against  covenantor. 
Clutter  vs.  Wisconsin  Texas  Oil  Co.,  233  S.  W.,  322. 
Kies  vs.  Williams,  228  S.  W.  40,  (Ky.)  holding  rule 

has  special  application  to  forfeiture  clause. 
Jenkins  vs.  Williams,  229  S.  W.,  94.    ' 
Paraffin  Oil  Co.  vs.  Cruce,   162   Pac,  716;    14  A.  L. 

R.,  952  and  note. 

26.  "In  order  to  preserve  his  rifrhts  under  a  con- 
tract of  this  kind  (one  not  providin":  for  rentals  or 
fixing  the  time  for  drilling:),  the  lessee  must  betrin 
Avithin  a  reasonable  time  the  performance  of  his  part 
of  sneh  contract  and  continue  in  the  performance  of 
the  same  Avith  reasonable  diligence." 

Emery  vs.  League,  72  S.  W.,  p.  607,  and  cases  cited. 

27.  Reasonable  diligence,  it  has  been  held,  will 


13  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

be  required  where  rentals  are  to  be  paid  in  case  no 
well  is  drilled  within  a  specified  time. 

Owens  vs.  Corsicana  Pet.  Co.,  169  S.  W.,  p.  195;  222 

S.   W.,   154. 
Bertram  Developing  Co.  vs.  Tucker,  228  S.  W.,  1027. 
See  Notes  33   (b),  56,  94. 

28.  Temporary  cessation  will  not  sub.ject  the  lease 
to  forfeiture. 

Benavides  vs.  Hunt,   79   Texas,  p.   396,   397;    15   S. 

W.,    p.    401,   holding   demand   for   resumption   of 

operations  necessary. 
Fisher  vs.  Crescent  Oil  Co.,  178  S.  W.,  p.  907. 
Rennie  vs.  Red  Star  Oil  Co.,  190  Pac,  391. 
Ohio  Fuel  Oil  Co.  vs.  Greenleaf,  99  S.  E.,  274. 
See  Burnett  vs.  Summerour,  228  S.  W.,  1013. 
Clutter  vs.  Wisconsin  Texas  Oil  Co.,  233  S.  W.,  322, 

326. 
See  Notes  76,  310. 

29.  Conveyance,  by  lessor,  of  land  on  which  an 
unilateral  leiise  exists,  is  within  his  rights  if  prior 
to  beginning  of  performance  by  lessee  and  is  an 
annul! ment  of  the  lease. 

Roberts  vs.  McFadden,  74  S.  W.,  p.  111. 
Canon  vs.  Scott,  230  S.  W.,  1042. 

30.  \\'aiver  of  forfeiture  may  be  made  by: 

(a)  Permitting  the  lessee  to  go  ahead  and  develop 
premises: 

Benavides  vs.  Hunt,  79  Texas,  p.  391;    15  S.  W.,  p. 

399. 
Owens  vs.  Corsicana  Pet.  Co.,  169  S.  W.,  p.  195;  222 

S.  W.,  154. 


14  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

Von  Hatzfeld  vs.  Haubert,  224  S.  W.,  220. 
(b)     Or  by  accepting  delay  money. 

G.  C.  &  S.  F.  Ry.  Co.  vs.  Settegast,  79  Texas,  256 r 

15  S.  W.,  228. 
S.  W.  Oil  Co.  vs.  McDaniel,  175  Pac,  920  and  cases 

cited. 
Maud  Oil  &  Gas  Co.  vs.  Bodkin,  180  Pac,  959. 
JenS-Marie  Oil  Co.  vs.  Rixse,   178  Pac,   658. 
See  Note  274. 

(e)  Or  by  extending  time  for  payment  of  rent 
due. 

Wahlstrom  vs.  Christy,  180  Pac,  528. 

(d)     Or  by  asking  for  extension. 

Morton  vs.  Brinks,  197  Pac,  210. 

Waiver  of  forfeiture  should   be  distinguished  from 

waiver  of  breach,  the  latter  requiring  independent 

consideration.     Niles  vs.  Meade,  224  S.  W.,   854,. 

857. 
On    this   point   see    Peerless   Carbon    Black    Co.    vs. 

Gillespie,  105  S.  E.,  517. 
See  Notes  43.  269,  274. 

31.  TJie  discovery  of  oil  on  any  portion  of  tli-? 
leased  premises  by  any  holder  under  the  lease,  vests 
a  right  to  the  entire  lease  for  the  whole  term. 

Fisher  vs.  Crescent  Oil  Co.,  178  S.  W.,  905-6. 

Lynch  vs.  Davis,  92  S.  E.,  427  and  cases  cited. 

Gypsy  Oil  Co.  vs.  Cover,  189  Pac,  540. 

Ohio  Fuel  Oil  Co.  vs.  Greenleaf,  9  9  S.  E.,  2  74. 

Duke  vs.  Stewart,  230  S.  W.,  485. 

Smith  vs.  First  Nat.  Bank,  198   Pac,   103. 

See  Notes  322,  335. 


15  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

32.  Performance  brings  a  vested  right  to  the 
lessee,  which  cannot  be  terminated,  at  the  Avill  of  the 
lessor,  and  which  is  not  affected  by  the  exhaustion 
of  the  discovery  well. 

Fisher  vs.  Crescent  Oil  Co.,  178  S.  W.,  907-8. 

Gypsy  Oil  €0.  vs.  Cover,  189  Pac,  540. 

See  Davis  vs.  Texas  Co.,   232  S.   W.,   p.   563,  as  to 

abandonment. 
See  Note   310. 

■33.     Implied  obligations  of  a  lease  contract : 

(a)     To  continue  operations  after  discovery: 

Fisher  vs.   Crescent  Oil  Co.,   178   S.   W.,   907-8   and 

cases  cited. 
Grass  vs.  Development  Co.,  84  S.  E.,  p.  755. 
Grubb  vs.  McAfee,  212  S.  W.,  464. 
Daugherty  vs.  Ohio  Oil  Co.,  105  N.  E.,  308. 
Key  vs.  Big  Sandy  O.  &  G.  Dev.  Co.,  212  S.  W.,  300 
Eastern  Oil  Co.  vs.  Beatty,  177  Pac,  104. 
Guffey  Pet.  Co.  vs.  Chaisson  Townsite  Co.,  107  S.  W., 

609. 
Strange  vs.  Hicks,  188  Pac,  347. 
27  Cyc,  731. 
Gypsy  Oil  Co.  vs.  Cover,  189  Pac,  540;   11  A.  L.  R., 

129. 
Davis  vs.  Texas  Co.,  232  S.  W.,  549. 
Marnett  Oil  &  Gas  Co.  vs.  Munsey,  232  S.  W.,  p.  872 
Todd   vs.   Mfrs.    Light  &   Heat   Co.,    110   S.   E.,   446, 

(holding  damages  may  be  recovered). 
Paraffine  Oil  Co.  vs.  Cruce,  162  Pac,  716;   14  A.  L. 

R.,  952. 
Blair  vs.  Clear  Creek  Oil  &  Gas  Co.,  230  S.  W.,  286. 
See  (b)   infra. 

<b)     Duty  to  drill  off-set  wells: 


16  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

Wapa  Oil  &  Dev.  Co.  vs.  McBride,  201  Pac,  984  (re- 
quiring notice). 

L.  R.  A.,  1917  A,  171;   L.  R.  A.,   1917  E,  975. 

Guffey  Pet.  Co.  vs.  Townsite  Co.,  107  S.  W.,  p.  612. 

Note  34  L.  R.  A.   (N.  S.),  40. 

Kies  vs.  Williams,  228  S.  W.,  40  (Ky.)  intimating 
that  forfeiture  clause  is  basis  of  duty. 

Grass  vs.  Development  Co.,   84  S.  E.,   750. 

See  Davis  vs.  Texas  Co.,  232  S.  W.,  549. 

Steel  vs.  Am.  Oil  Development  Ca,  92  S.  E.,  410  and 
cases  cited. 

Eastern  Oil  Co.  vs.  Beatty,  17  7  Pac,  104,  holding 
duty  does  not  exist  during  period  for  which 
delay  money  is  paid.  See  this  case  for  remedy 
for  breach  of  this  implied  covenant,  and  for  dis- 
cussion of  question  of  notice. 

Stanley  vs.  United  Fuel  Gas  Co.,  90  S.  E.,  344. 

Ohio  Fuel  Supply  Co.  vs.  Shilling,  127  N.  E.,  873. 
(burden  of  proof.) 

Pelham  Pet.  Co.  vs.  North,  188  Pac,  1069. 

Carper  vs.  United  Fuel  Gas  Co.,  89  S.  E.,  12;  L. 
R.  A.,   1917  A,  171. 

Blair  vs.  Clear  Creek  Oil  &  Gas  Co.,  230  S.  W.,  286, 
(holding  failure  abandonment,   etc.). 

See  Notes  49,   50,   56,   336. 

(e)     To  develop: 

Mid-Texas  Pet.  Co.  vs.  Colcord,  235  S.  W.,  p.  715. 
Wapa   Oil   &   Dev.   Co.   vs.   McBride,   201   Pac,    984 

(stating  nature  of  remedy). 
Edwards  vs.  Roberts,  209  S.  W.,  247. 
Discussed  in  Eastern  Oil  Co.  vs.   Beatty,   177   Pac, 

p.  105. 
Carper  vs.  United  Fuel  Gas  Co.,  L.  R.  A.,   1917   A, 

171. 
S.  W.  Oil  Co.  vs.  McDaniel,  175  Pac,  p.  922. 
Grass  vs.  Development  Co.,  84  S.  E.,  754,  755. 
Note  34  L.  R.  A.   (N.  S.),  42,  44. 


17  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

Guffey  Pet.  Co.,  vs.  Oliver,  79  S.  W.,  884. 

Grubb  vs.  McAfee,  212  S.  W.,  464. 

Ammons  vs.  South  Penn  Oil  Co.,  35  S.  E.,  1104. 

Harness  vs.  Eastern  Oil  Co.,  38  S.  E.,  662. 

Four   Brotherhood    Oil   Co.    vs.    Keller,    235    S.   W., 

604,      (breach      of      covenant      as      ground      for 

forfeiture). 
Core  vs.  N.  Y.  Pet.  Co.,  43  S.  E.,  128. 
New  Am.  Oil  &  Mining  Co.  vs.  Troyer,  76  N.  E.,  253. 
New  Am.  Oil  &  Mining  Co.  vs.  Wolff,  76  N.  E.,  255. 
Consumers  Gas  Trust  Co.  vs.  Littler,  70  N.  E.,  363. 
S.   W.    Oil  Co.   vs.   Kersey,    195    Pac,    120,    holding 

obligation  yields  to  right  to  pay  delay  money.  See 

Note  56. 
Tucker  vs.  Canfield,  2  76  Fed.,  385. 
Paraffin  Oil  Co.  vs.  Cruce,  162  Pac,  716;    14  A.  L. 

R.,  952. 
Monarch  Oil,  Etc.,  Co.  vs.  Richardson,  99  S.  W.,  668. 
Hughes  vs.  Parsons,  209  S.  W.,  853. 
Smith  vs.  Root,  30  L.  R.  A.    (N.  S.),  p.   181. 
Warren  Oil  &  Gas  Co.  vs.  Gilliam,  207  S.  W.,  698. 
Hitson  vs.  Gilman,  220  S.  W.,  140. 
Pierce  vs.  T.  P.  C.  &  O.  Co.,  225  S.  W.,  193. 
Millar  vs.  Mauney,  234  S.  W.,  498   (holding  breach  is 

ground  of  forfeiture). 
See  also  Skinner  vs.  Ajax  Portland  Cement  Co.,  197 

Pac,  875. 
Is  covenant,  not  condition. 

Hynson  vs.  Gulf  Prod.  Co.,  232  S.  W.,  873,  874. 
Todd  vs.  Mfrs.  Light  &  Heat  Co.,  110  S.  E.,  446. 
Clutter  vs.  Wisconsin  Texas  Oil  Co.,  233  S.  W.,  322. 
See  Notes  26,  56,  57,  94,  194,  230,  336,  378. 

(d)     To  market: 

Davenport  vs.  Schoenfelt,  229  S.  W.,  1043. 
Howerton  vs.  Gas  Co.,  34  L.  R.  A.   (N.  S.),  34. 
But  see  Roach  vs.  Junction  Oil  &  Gas  Co.,  179  Pac, 
934. 


18  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

(e)  To  drill  after  failure  of  one  well: 

Thornton  p.  237. 

Pierce  vs.  T.  P.  C.  &  O.  Co.,  225  S.  W.,  193. 

See  Notes  57,  336. 

(f)  See  Note  11. 

(g)  See  Note  315. 

34.  The  assignee  under  an  instrument  conveyins: 
an  interest  in  land,  who  does  not  specially  agree  to 
assume  its  burdens  and  obligations,  takes  free  from 
such  burdens  and  obligations ;  but  the  rule  is  other- 
wise where  the  instrument  is  only  a  lease  contract, 
as  there  the  burdens  and  obligations,  such  as  pay- 
ment of  rents,  run  with  the  land. 

Pierce  Fordyce  Oil  Ass'n  vs.  Woodrum,  188  S.  W., 
251,    252,    248,    254    and   cases   cited. 

Lowry  vs.  Atlantic  Coal  Co.,  115  Atl.,  847,  appls'ing 
rule  to  royalties  and  holding  assignor  released. 

Cauble  vs.  Hanson,  224  S.  W.,  922. 

Gordon  vs.  Wilcox,  200  Pac,  282. 

See  Note  48. 

35.  "Oil  in  paying  quantities"  defined. 

T.  P.  C.  &  O.  Co.  vs.  Bruce,  233  S.  W.,  535,  (show- 
ing what  expenses  should  be  considered.) 

Aycock  vs.  Paraffine  Oil  Co.,  210  S.  W.,  851. 

Lawther  Oil  Co.  vs.  Miller  Sibley  Oil  Co.,  44  S.  E., 
433;   97  Am.  St.  1027. 

See  especially  Pelham  Pet.  Co.  vs.  North,  188  Pac, 
1069  and  cases  cited. 

Ohio  Fuel  Oil  Co.  vs.  Greenleaf,  99  S.  E.,  274. 

Keechi  Oil  &  Gas  Co.  vs.  Smith,  198  Pac,  588. 

See  Notes  102,  359. 


19  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

36.  As  to  division  of  royalties  where  oil  is  found 
on  only  one  of  several  tracts  of  land  conveyed  by  will 
or  deed,  see 

Gillette  vs.  Mitchell,  214  S.  W.,  619. 

Wettengel  vs.  Gormley,  28  Atl.  934. 

Harvey  Coal  &  Coke  Co.  vs.  Dillon,  53  S.  E.,  928. 

Campbell  vs.  Lynch,  94  S.  E.,  739;  L.  R.  A.,  1918  B, 

107. 
Lynch  vs.  Davis,  92  S.  E.,  427. 
But  see  also,  McKean  Nat.  Gas  Co.  vs.  Wolcott,  98 

Atl.,  955. 
Fairbanks  vs.  Warrum,  104  N.  E.,  983. 
N.  W.  O.  Natural  Gas  Co.  vs.  Ullery,  67  N.  E.,  494. 
Osborne  vs.  Oil  &  Gas  Co.,  146  S.  W.,  122  (Ark). 
Rymer  vs.  South  Penn.  Oil  Co.,  46  S.  W.,  559. 
Pittsburgh    &   W.    Va.    Gas     Co.     vs.     Ankrom,     97 

S.  E.,  593;  5  A.  L.  R.,  1157,  and  note. 
See  Notes  13,  18,  222. 

37.  One  dollar  is  sufficient  consideration  to  sup- 
port an  oil  lease  or  a  surrender  clause  therein. 

Corsicana  Pet.  Co.  vs.  Owens,  222  S.  W.  154. 

McKay  vs.  Kilcrease,  220  S.  W.,  177. 

Leath  vs.  Humble  Oil  &  Ref.  Co.,  223  S.  W.,  1022, 

and  cases  cited. 
Johnson  vs.  Russell,  220  S.  W.,  352. 
Lone  Star  Gas  Co.  vs.  McCullough,  220  S.  W.,  1114. 
Shaffer  vs.   Marks,    241   Fed.,   p.    152. 
Nolan  vs.  Young,   220   S.  W.,   154. 
Hunter  vs.  Gulf  Production  Co.,  220  S.  W.,  163. 
Emde  vs.  Johnson,  214  S.  W.,  575. 
Rich  vs.  Doneghey,  177  Pac,  p.  91,  and  cases  cited. 
Lindlay  vs.  Raydure,  239  Fed.,  928. 
McKay  vs.  Tally,  220  S.  W.,   167. 
See  cases  cited  in  briefs  of  parties,  L.  R.  A.,  1917 

B,  p.  1188,  and  in  opinion  p.  1203. 


20  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

Gypsy  Oil  Co.  vs.  Rambo,  189  Pac,  193,  holding  con- 
sideration supports  surrender  clause.  On  this 
point  see,  also,  Buie  vs.  Porter,  228  S.   W.,  999. 

Davis  vs.  Texas  Co.,  232  S.  W.,  549. 

Richardson  vs.  Hog  Greek  Oil  Co.,  229  S.  W.,  563. 

Epperson  vs.  Helbron,  22  5  S.  W.,  345. 

But  see  Great  Western  Oil  Co.  vs.  Carpenter,  95  S. 
W.,  57. 

See  Notes  6,  185. 

38.  Development  of  the  natural  resources  of  the 
country  should  be  allowed  to  proceed  if  the  rights 
of  litigants  can  be  protected,  and  oil  and  gas  leases 
will  be  construed  accordingly. 

Emde  vs.  Johnson,  214  S.  W.,  575. 

See  Prowant  vs.  Sealy,  187  Pac,  235. 

T.  P.  C.  &  O.  Co.  vs.  Howard,  212  S.  W.,  735. 

Garfield  Oil  Co.  vs.  Champlin,  189  Pac,  514. 

McKee  vs.  Thornton,  192  Pac,  212,  214. 

Davenport  vs.  Schoenfelt,  229  S.  W.,  1043. 

Carder  vs.  Blackwell  Oil  &  Gas  Co.,  201  Pac,  252. 

Parafline  Oil  Co.  vs.  Cruce,  162  Pac,  716;   14  A.  L. 

R.,  952. 
Gypsy   Oil   Co.   vs.    Cover    (Okla.),    189    Pac,    540; 

11  A.  L.  R.,  129,  136. 
Clutter  vs.   Wisconsin  Texas  Oil  Co.,  233   S.  W.,  p. 

324. 

39.  Kule  for  test  of  whether  a  temporary  injunc- 
tion should  be  granted. 

Emde  vs.  Johnson,  214  S.  W.,  p.  578. 
See  Browning  vs.  Hinerman,  224  S.  W.,  236. 
So.  Oil  Corp.  vs.  Waggoner,  224  S.  W.,  230. 
T.  P.  C.  &  O.  Co.  vs.  Howard.  212  S.  W.,  735. 
Collins  vs.  Humble  Oil  &  Ref.  Co.,  223  S.  W.,  696. 
Claborn  vs.  Camilla  Red  Ash  Coal  Co.,  128  Va.,  383; 
105  S.  E.,  117;  15  A.  L.  R.,  946. 


21  Texas  Oil  akd  Gas  Decisions. 

Ringling  vs.  Mahurin,  197  Pac,  829. 

Mid-Texas  Pet.  Co.  vs.  Colcord,  235  S.  W.,  710. 

(It  is  believed  that  the  rule  requiring  the  balancing 

of  hardships  should   not  be  applied  in  behalf  of 

a  trespasser.) 
See  Notes  105,  148,  150. 

40.  A  public  road  may  not  be  leased  for  oil  piir 
poses  by  the  commissioners'  court. 

Boone  vs.  Clark,  214   S.  W.,  607. 

41.  An  owner  may  take  oil  from  underneath  his 
own  land,  regardless  of  the  fact  that  his  doing  so 
will  drain  oil  from  underneath  the  land  of  adjoining 
owners. 

P.  O.  &  G.  Co.  vs.  State,  231  S.  W.,  1088. 

Gillette  vs.  Mitchell,  214  S.  W.,  p.  622. 

Brown  vs.  Spillman,  155  U.  S.,  665. 

"Westmoreland  Nat.  Gas  Co.,  vs.  DeWitt,  18  Atl.,  724. 

Barnard  vs.  Monongahela  Gas  Co.,  65  Atl.,  801. 

Jones  vs.  Forest  Oil  Co.,  48  L.  R.  A.,  748. 

Kelly  vs.  Ohio  Oil  Co.,  39  L.  R.  A.,  765;    49  N.  E.. 

399. 
But  see  R.  S.,  Art.  4643-A.,  Acts  Thirty-sixth  Leg., 

p.  311,  Ch.  162. 
See  Notes  105,  209. 

42.  Ill  .an  action  to  cancel  a  deed  the  plea  of 
improvements  in  good  faith  is  good. 

Dean  vs.  Dean,  214  S.  W.,  509. 

43.  Time  is  of  the  essence  of  an  oil  lease,  unless 
the  lease  provides  otherwise. 

Eastern  Oil  Co.  vs.  Smith,   195  Pac,  773    (applying 
rule  to  "unless"  lease). 


22  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions, 

Brown  vs.  Wilson,  L.  R.  A.,  1917  B,  p.  1191. 

Hickernell  vs.  Gregory,  224  S.  W.,  691,  697. 

Niles  vs.  Meade,  224  S.  W.,  854,  857,  showing 
reason  for  rule  and  holding  failure  to  comply  by 
time  stated  is  breach,  not  merely  ground  for 
forfeiture.  On  this  point  see,  also,  McLaughlin 
vs.  Brock,  225  S.  W.,  575,  and  cases  cited. 

Garfield  Oil  Co.  vs.  Champlin,  189  Pac,  514. 

McCallister  vs.  Texas  Co.,  223  S.  W.,  859,  863. 

McKinlay  vs.  Feagins,  198  Pac,  997. 

Olsen  vs.  Erwin,  229  S.  \V.,  878. 

Von  Harten  &  Clark  vs.  Nevels,  234  S.  W.,  676, 
(holding  time  essential  in  all  contracts  where 
prices  fluctuate). 

Hutchinson  vs.  Atlas  Oil  Co.,  87  So.,  265. 

Gillespie  vs.  Bobo,  271  Fed.  641. 

Wilbanks  vs.  Selby,  227  S.  W.,  371. 

Appling  vs.  Morrison,  227  S.  W.,  708. 

Texas  Co.  vs.  Curry,  229  S.  W.,  643. 

Langford  vs.  Bivins,  225  S.  W.,  867  (contract  to- 
lease). 

But  see  Burnett  Coal  Mining  Co.  vs.  Schrepferman,. 
133  N.  E.,  34. 

But  see  De  Flores  vs.  Smith,  236  S.  W.,  p.  507. 

See  Notes  8,  30,  44,  45,  75,  128,  157,  234,  269. 

44.  There  is  no  difference,  for  purposes  ol 
forfeiture,  between  a  lease  which  by  its  provisions 
becomes  void  unless  delay  money  is  paid,  and  one 
which  provides  for  delay  money  without  mentioning- 
its  voidability  for  default  thereof. 

Brown  vs.  Wilson,  L.  R.  A.,  1917  B,  p.  1191;  but  see 
dissenting  opinion,  page  1203,  and  Rich  vs. 
Doneghey,  177  Pac,  p.  91. 

See  Hickernell  vs.  Gregory,  224  S.  W.,  691. 

But  see  Kies  vs.  Williams,  228  S.  W.,  40,  limiting 
forfeiture  to  "unless"  leases. 


23  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

Turner  vs.  Lick  Creek  Oil  &  Gas.  Co.,  234  S.  W.,  191 

likewise  limiting  rule. 
Also,  Healdton  O.  &  G.  Co.  vs.  Smith,  195  Pac,  756. 
Also,  Petitt  vs.  Double  O  Oil  Co.,    198    Pac,    616, 

holding  abandonment  automatically     cancels. 
Likewise  McKinlay  vs.  Feagins,  198  Pac.  997. 
Likewise  Harvey  vs.  Benmo  Oil  Co.,  272  Fed.,  474. 
See  Notes  8,  43,  45,  69,  75,  128,  157,  234. 

45.  Failure  to  pay  rentals  as'  an  abandonment 
authorizing  forfeiture. 

Brown  vs.  Wilson,  L.  R.  A.,   1917   B,  p.   1184,    (see 

especially  dissenting  opinion). 
See  Notes  8,  23,  43,  44,  75,  128,  157,  234. 

46.  A  check  is  not  "cash  in  advance." 

Brown  vs.  Wilson,  L.  R.  A.,  1917  B,  p.  1192,  1190, 
citing  Kolachny  vs.  Galbreath,  26  Okla.,  772;  110 
Pac,  902;  38  L.  R.  A.  (N.  S.),  451. 

47.  A  lease  binds  the  lessee  to  do  one  of  three 
things,  viz : 

(a)  Drill  a  well  within  the  fixed  time,  or 

(b)  Pay  the  surrender  price,  and  quit,  or 

(c)  Pay  the  rentals. 

Rich  vs.  Doneghey,  177  Pac,  p.  90. 

48.  May  a  lessee  be  held  for  rentals  where  there 
is  no  forfeiture  or  surrender? 

Turner  vs.  Lick  Creek  Oil  &  Gas  Co.,  234  S.  W.,  191. 
•Rich  vs.  Doneghey,  177  Pac,  p.  90,  and  cases  cited. 
Clemenger  vs.  Flesher,  185  S.  W.,  304. 
Hancock  vs.  Diamond.  Plate  Glass  Co.,  70  N.  E.,  149. 


24  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions, 

Pierce  Fordyce  Oil  Ass'n  vs.  Woodrum,   188  S.  W., 

p.  253. 
Hazelton  vs.  Chaffin,  197  Pac,  870. 
Farlow  vs.  Frankson,  203  Pac,  299,   (under  clause 

added  to  "unless"  lease). 
See  Notes  7,  34,  69,  260,  390. 

49.  Action  either  ex  contractu  or  ex  delicto  will 
lie  for  failure  to  drill  off-set  wells. 

Steele  vs.  Am.  Oil  Development  Co.,  92  S.  E.,  410. 
See    Pelham    Pet.    Co.    vs.    North,    188    Pac,    1069, 
holding  obligation  is  a  covenant. 

50.  Character  and  amount  of  proof  necessary  to 
show  that  oil  exists,  so  as  to  necessitate  off-set  wells : 

Blair  vs.  Clear  Creek  Oil  &  Gas  Co.,  230  S.  W.,  286. 

Steele  vs.  Am.  Oil  Development  Co.,  92  S.  E.,  410. 

Eastern  Oil  Co.  vs.  Beatty,  177  Pac,  p.  107. 

Grass  vs.  Big  Creek  Development  Co.,  84  S.  E.,  750. 

Ohio  Fuel  Supply  Co.  vs.  Shilling,  127  N.  E.,  873. 

Hart  vs.  Standard  Oil  Co.,  84  So.,  169. 

Burt  vs.  Deorsam,  227  S.  W.,  354. 

Gypsy  Oil  Co.  vs.  Cover,  189  Pac,  540;   11  A.  L.  R., 

129,  and  cases  cited. 
Barquin  vs.  Hall  Oil  Co.,  201  Pac,  352. 
Wapa  Oil  &  Dev.  Co.  vs.  McBride,  201  Pac,  984. 
Todd  vs.  Mfgr's.  Light  &  Heat  Co.,  110  S.  E.,  446. 

51.  Delay  in  mails  as  ground  for  forfeiture  for 
non-payment. 

Harvey  vs.  Benmo  Oil  Co.,  272  Fed.,  475. 
Kays«-vs.  Little,  175  Pac,  149;   103  Kan.,  461;   1  A. 

L.  R.,  675;   cited  in  Parris  vs.  Butler  County  Oil 

Co.,  195  Pac,  879. 

52.  Adverse     possession    of    mineral    rights,    as 
affecting  limitation. 


25  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

1  A.  L.  R.,  p.   562. 

Algonquin  Coal  Co.  vs.  Northern  Coal  &  Iron  Co., 
29  Atl.,   402. 

Adverse  possession  of  surface  where  minerals  liave 
been  severed. 

Green  vs.  West  Texas  Coal  Mining  &  Dev.  Co.,  225 
S.  W.,  548.  V 

Wallace  vs.  Hoyt,  225  S.  W.,  425.^> 

Coal  Co.  vs.  Sewell,  1  A.  L.  R.,  556.      ' 

Henderson  vs.  Chesley,  229  S.  W.,  573. v^ 

Davis  vs.  Texas  Co.,  232  S.  W.  549.  L 

Renfro  vs.  Hanon,  130  N.  E.,  740. 

Luse  vs.  Parmer,  221  S.  W.,  1031.   V 

Franklin  vs.  Gwin,  85  So.,  7.      *^J 

Scott  vs.  Laws,  215  S.  W.,  81;  13  A.  L.  R.,  369, 
and  note.  ^ 

Murray  vs.  Allred,  39  L.  R.  A.,  249;   43  S.  W.,  355.' 

Lyles  vs.  Dodge  (Kaufman),  228  S.  W.,  316  (show- 
ing how  possession  of  minerals  may  be  taken).  '•' 

Benavides  vs.  Hunt,  79  Texas,  383;   15  S.  W.,  396.  l 

53.  The  "lessor"  may  "transfer"  the  "rever- 
sion"; the  "lessee"  "assigns"  the  "lease." 

L.  R.  A.,  1915  C,  p.   195. 

• 

54.  It  is  held  that  a  surrender  clause  will  entitle 
the  lessor  to  terminate  the  lease  upon  tender  or 
payment  of  the  value  of  labor  done  and  services 
performed  by  lessee. 

J.  M.  Guffey  Pet.  Co.  vs.  Oliver,  7  9  S.  W.,  8  84. 
But  see  Note  59. 

55.  The  completion  of  a  non-productive  well 
vests  no  title  in  lessee. 


26  Texas  Oil  axd  Gas  Decisions. 

Steelsmith  vs.  Gartlan,  29  S.  E.,  978;   44  L.  R.  A., 

107. 
But  see  Key  vs.  Big  Sandy  Oil  &  G.  Dev.  Co.,  212 

S.  W.,  300,  on  peculiar  facts. 
And  see  Davis  vs.  Texas  Co.,  232  S.  W.,  549. 
(Why  should  this  proposition  be  true  if  drilling  is 

such  performance  as  will  supply  wanting  original 

consideration?) 

56.  There  is  no  duty  to  develop  or  drill  off-set 
wells  where  the  lease  provides  for  the  payment  of 
rentals  as  compensation  for  delay  in  development. 

Eastern  Oil  Co.  vs.  Beatty,  177  Pac,  104. 

Carper  vs.  United  Fuel  Gas  Co.,  89  S.  E.,  12. 

Ohio  Valley  Oil  &  Gas    Co.  vs.  Dev.  Co.,  212  S.  W., 

110    (where  rents  were  accepted). 
Denniston  vs.  Kenova  Oil  Co.,  220  S.  W.,  1078. 
Ocola  Oil  Co.  vs.  Hughes,  219  S.  W.,  799. 
Skein  vs.  Junction  Oil  &  Gas  Co.,  193  Pac,  988. 
S.  W.  Oil  Co.  vs.  Kersey,  195  Pac,  120. 
Buie  vs.  Porter,  228  S.  W.,  999. 
See  Bertram  Developing  Co.  vs.  Tucker,  228  S.  W., 

1027. 
Link  vs.  State's  Oil  Corp.,  229  S.  W..  693. 
Monarch  Oil  &  Gas  Co.  vs.  Hunt,  235  S.  W.,  772. 
De  Flores  vs.  Smith,  236  S.  W.,  p.  507. 
See  Blair  vs.  Creek  Oil  &  Gas  Co..  230  S.  W.,  286. 
See  Notes  27,  33c,  57,  94,   194. 

57.  Failure  to  drill  a  second  well  as  an  abandon- 
ment. 

S.  W.  Oil  Co.  vs.  McDaniel,  175  Pac,  p.  921. 
Parafflne  Oil  Co.  vs.  Cruce,  162  Pac,  716;   14  A.  L. 

R.,  952. 
Davis  vs.  Texas  Co.,  232  S.  W.,  549. 
See  Pratt  ^~s.  Hays,  226  S.  W.,  362. 
See  Notes  33c,  56,  94,  194,  310. 


27  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

58.  "Said  date"  refers  to  next  preceding  ante- 
cedent. 

S.  W.  Oil  Co.  vs.  McDaniel,  175  Pac,  p.  921. 

59.  The  fact  that  a  lease  gives  the  lessee  the 
option  of  either  drilling  or  paying  rentals,  does  not 
entitle  the  lessor  to  terminate  the  lease. 

S.  W.  Oil  Co.  vs.  McDaniel,  175  Pac,  p.  922. 
See  Note  54. 

60.  Right  of  owner,  after  execution  of  lease,  in 
gas  well  existing  at  time  of  lease. 

Kemp  vs.  Barr  Gas  Co.,  175  Pac,  988. 

61.  ^Measure  of  damages  for  failure  to  comply 
with  agreement  to  make  proper  test. 

Grass  vs.  Development  Co.,  84  S.  E.,  p.  754. 

62.  "Unless"  and  "or"  leases  distinguished. 

Brown  vs.  Wilson,  L.  R.  A.,  1917  B,  p.  1191. 
Shaffer  vs.  Marks,  241  Fed.,  p.  158. 
Garfield  Oil  Co.  vs.  Champlin,  189  Pac,  514. 
Kies  vs.  Williams,  228  S.  W.,   40    (as  to  forfeiture 

for  non  payment  of  rentals). 
See  Notes  7,  48,  260. 

63.  Effect  of  accident  or  mistake  in  making  pay- 
ment on  right  to  declare  forfeiture. 

Shaffer  vs.  Marks,  241  Fed.,  139. 
Hunter  vs.  Gulf  Production  Co.,  220  S.  W.,  163. 
Gillespie  vs.  Bobo,  271  Fed.,  641   (mailing  check  to 
incorrect  address). 


28  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

See  Notes  75,  283. 

64.  Equity  does  not  abhor  the  forfeiture  of  an 
oil  and  gas  lease. 

Note  34  L.  R.  A.   (N.  S.),  34. 

Note  11  L.  R.  A.  (N.  S.),  418. 

Cockrum  vs.  Christy,  223  S.  W.,   308. 

Jenkins  vs.  Williams,  229  S.  W.,  94. 

Clutter   vs.    Wisconsin    Texas    Oil    Co.,    233    S.    W., 

322. 
Bell  vs.  Kilburn,  234  S.  W.,  730. 
See  Epperson  vs.  Helbron,  225  S.  W.,  345. 
Gillespie  vs.   Bobo,   271   Fed.,   641,  holding   "equity 

does  not  undertake  to  dispense  with  compliance 

with  what  is  made  a  condition  precedent  to  the 

acquisition  of  a  right." 
Kies   vs.    Williams,    228    S.    W.,    40    (showing    rule 

where  large  investments     have     been     made     by 

lessee). 
But  see  Turner  vs.  Robertson,  224  S!  W.,  252. 
See  Notes  71,  212,  269. 

65.  As  to  when  the  remedy  is  damages  and  when 
it  is  a  forfeiture,  see 

C.  T.  &  M.  C.  Ry.  Co.  vs.  Titterington,  84  Texas,  218; 

19  S.  W.,  472. 
See  Hickernell  vs.  Gregory,  224  S.  W.,  691. 
Howerton  vs.  Gas  Co.,  34  L.  R.  A.   (N.  S.),  p.  45. 
Eastern  Oil  Co.  vs.  Beatty,  177  Pac,  104. 
•Clemenger  vs.  Flesher,  185  S.  W.,  304,  as  to  when 

the  remedy  is  either,  but  not  both. 
Daughetee  vs.  Ohio  Oil  Co.,  105  N.  E.,  308,  310. 
Teagne  vs.  Teague,   54  S.  W.,  632. 
Cox  vs.  Combs,  111  S.  W.,  1061. 
Barquin   vs.   Hall   Oil   Co.,   201    Pac,    352    (election 

of  remedies) . 
See  Notes  73,  74,  83. 


29  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

66.  Delay  money  is  sometimes  called  "well-rent." 

La  Fayette  Gas  Co.  vs.  Kelsey,   74  N.  E.,  p.   9. 
Hancock  vs.  Diamond  Plate  Glass  Co.,  70  N.  E.,  p. 
152. 

and  sometimes  "acreage  rental." 

Consumers  Gas  Trust  Co.  vs.  Littler,  70  N.  E.,  p.  365. 

and  sometimes  "rentals." 

Knight  Bros.  vs.  Standard  Oil  Co.,  84  So.,  p.  655. 
Davis  vs.  Texas  Co.,  232  S.  W.,  p.  562. 

67.  Payment  by  cheek,  when  authorized  bank 
accepts  and  deposits  as  money,  is  suflficient. 

La  Fayette  Gas  Co.  vs.  Kelsey,  74  N.  E.,  p.  9. 
See  Notes  114,  141. 

68.  It  seems  that  in  the  absence  of  a  surrender 
clause  a  lease,  proA'iding  that  it  shall  become  null 
and  void  for  default  in  payment,  is  nevertheless 
enforceable  against  the  lessee. 

Hancock  vs.  Diamond  Plate  Glass  Co.,  70  N.  E.,  149, 

152,  and  cases  cited. 
See  Notes  7,  48,  69,  260. 

69.  Default  of  lessee  will  not  excuse  his  non- 
performance, even  where  contract  provides  it  shall 
be  null  and  void  in  event  of  such  default. 

Bates  vs.  Georgia  Fertilizer  Co.,  229  S.  W.,  153. 
Hancock  vs.  Diamond  Plate  Glass  Co.,  70  N.  E.,  149, 

152,  and  cases  cited. 
Great  Westerij  Oil  Co.  vs.  Carpenter,  95  S.  W.,  57. 


30  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

But  see  Eastern  Oil  Co.  vs.  Smith,   195   Pac,   775,. 

and   McKinlay  vs.   Feagins,    198    Pac,    997,   both 

holding  "unless"  clause  is  option  in  lessee. 
Likewise  Harvey  vs.  Benmo  Oil  Co.,  272  Fed.,  475, 

and  cases  cited. 
See  C.  C.   Slaughter  Cattle   Co.   vs.   Potter   County^ 

235  S.  W.,  p.  304. 
See  Notes  7,  44,  48,  260,  390. 

70.  The  rule  that  a  grantee  in  a  deed  conveying- 
a  certain  number  of  indefinite  acres  out  of  a  larger 
tract  authorizes  the  grantee  to  elect  what  acres  he 
will  take,  probably  would  not  apply  in  case  of  an. 
oil  lease,  as  the  reason  for  the  rule  in  the  case  of  a 
deed  is  that  the  deed  is  constraed  most  strongly 
against  the  grantor  (Wofford  vs.  McKinna,  23  Texas, 
45),  whereas  an  oil  lease  is  construed  most  strongly 
against  the  lessee. 

See  Notes  25,  258. 

71.  An  ambiguous  provision  of  an  oil  lease  will 
not  support  a  forfeiture.  "Where  a  contract  is  so 
vague  in  its  terms  that  a  court  cannot  determine 
its  meaning,  it  would  be  unjust  to  enforce  a  for- 
feiture under  it  against  one  whose  only  fault  has 
been  to  possibly  mistake  its  meaning." 

Decker  vs.   Kirlicks,    216   S.   W.,   385. 

Benavides  vs.  Hunt,  79  Texas,  p.  392;  15  S.  W.,  p.- 
399. 

See  Strange  vs.  Hicks,  188  Pac,  347,  holding  ex- 
trinsic evidence  will  be  heard. 

Green  vs.  West  Texas  Coal  Mining  &  Dev.  Co.,  225^ 
S.  W.,  548. 

T.  P.  C.  &  O.  Co.  vs.  Harris,  230  S.  W.,  237. 


31  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

Texas  Co.  vs.  Curry,  229  S.  W.,  643. 
See  Note  103. 

72.  Possession  is  not  construetive  notice  when  it. 
is  not  inconsistent  with  rights  attempted  to  be  estab- 
lished, 

Nat'l  Oil  &  Pipe  Line  Co.  vs.  Teel,   95  Texas  586; 

68  S.  W.,  979. 
See   Note    216. 

73.  Covenants  authorize  a  suit  for  damages;  con- 
ditions authorize  forfeiture. 

Ry.  vs.  Titterington,  84  Texas,  p.  222;  19  S.  W.,  472. 
See  especially  Hickernell  vs.  Gregory,  224  S.  W.,  691. 
See  Howerton  vs.  Gas  Co.,  34  L.  R.  A.  (N.  S.),  p.  45. 
Weiss  vs.  Claborn,  219  S.  W.,  884. 
See  Pierce  vs.  T.  P.  C.  &  O.  Co.,  225  S.  W.,  193. 
See,   especially,   Harris  vs.   Rather,    134   S.    W.,   754 

and  cases  cited. 
Also,  Isom  vs.  Rex  Crude  Oil  Co.,  82  Pac,  p.  318. 
Mercer-Lincoln  Pine  Knob  Oil  Co.  vs.  Pruitt,  229  S. 

W.,  374. 
See  7  A.  L.  R.,  1429. 
See  Notes  65,  83. 

For  discussion  of  equitable  relief  against  forfeiture 
for  breach  of  condition  subsequent,  see 

Young  vs.  Jones,  222  S.  W.,  p.  694. 

74.  Election  of  remedies,  as  constituting  estoppel. 

Barquin  vs.  Hall  Oil  Co.,  201  Pac,  352. 
Clemenger  vs.  Flesher,  185  S.  W.,  p.  305. 
Walker  vs.  Lane,  233  S.  W.,  634. 
See  Note  65. 


32  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

75.  As  to  when  a  lessee  tries  in  good  faith  to 
make  rental  payment  and  fails  on  account  of  accident 
or  mistake,  see 

Shaffer  vs.  Marks,   241  Fed.,  p.   158. 
See  Notes  44,  45,  63,  128,  157,  234. 

76.  Discovery  of  gas  before  end  of  term,  even 
though  it  is  cased  off  and  well  is  drilled  deeper  after 
the  term  ends  with  intention  to  return  if  more 
profitable  production  is  not  obtained,  vests  the  title 
under  a  lease  which  does  not  require  the  marketing 
of  the  gas. 

Roach  vs.  Junction  Oil  «fe  Gas  Co.,  179  Pac.  934. 
Eastern  Oil  Co.  vs.  Coulehan,  64  S.  E.,  836. 
Parks  vs.  Sinai  Oil  &  Gas  Co.,  201  Pac,  517. 
See  Note  28. 

77.  Measure  of  damages  for  drilling  and  selling 
oil  off  of  land  belonging  to  another. 

Bender  vs.  Brooks,  103  Tex.,  329;  127  S.  W.,  168. 
See,   for  requisite  pleading  by  defendant.   Right  of 

Way     Oil     Co.     vs.     Gladys  City  Oil  Co.,   15  7  S. 

W.,  737. 
Oneal  vs.  Sun  Co.,  123  S.  W.,  172. 
Burnham   vs.   Hardy   Oil   Co.,    147    S.    W.,    331,   Aff. 

195  S.  W.,  1141  (co-tenants;  non-producing  well). 
Campbell  vs.  Smith,  101  N.  E.,  89. 
Wooden  ware  vs.  U.  S.,  106  U.  S.,  432;  27  L.  Ed.,  230. 
New  Domain  Oil  &  Gas  Co.  vs.  McKinney,  221  S.  W., 

245. 
Santa  Fe  Ry.  Co.  vs.  Smith,  171  S.  W.,  282. 
Witliff  vs.  Spreen,  112  S.  W.,  98. 
Boyle  vs.  Norris,   134  S.  W.,   767    (writ  denied). 
See  especially  Pittsburg    &     W.     Va.     Gas    Co.     vs. 

Pentress  Gas  Co.,  100  S.  E.,  296;  7  A.  L.  R.,  901, 

and  note. 


33  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

McNeely  vs.  So.  Penn.  Oil  Co.,  58  W.  Va.   438;    52 

S.  E.,  480. 
Kelvin  Lumber  &  Supply  Co.  vs.  Copper  State  Mining 

Co.,  232  S.  W.,  858. 
Petrelli  vs.  West  Va.  Pittsburgh  Coal  Co.,  104  S.  E., 

103. 
Barnes  vs.  Winona  Oil  Co.,  200  Pac,  985,  applying 

rule  to  case  where  lease  is  canceled. 
Zelma  Oil  Co.  vs.  Nemo  Oil  Co.,  203  Pac,  203. 
Mason  vs.  United  States,  273  Fed.,  135. 
Big    Sespe    Oil    Co.    vs.    Cochran,    276    Fed.,    216, 

(allowing  willful  trespasser  to  deduct  taxes  paid). 
See  Note  415. 

78.  "Ejiisdem  generis,"   as  applied  to   a   grant 
of  minerals. 

Right  of  Way  Oil  Co.  vs.  Gladys  City  Oil  Co.,  (Sup.) 

157  S.  W.,  737. 
Luse  vs.  Boatman,  217  S.  W.,  1096. 
Wolf  vs.  Blackwell  Oil  &  Gas  Co.,  186  Pac,  484. 
Green  vs.  West  Texas  Coal  Mining  Sc  Dev.  Co.,  225 

S.  W.,  548. 
Donnell  vs.  Otts,  230  S.  W.,   864,   866. 
See  Note  116. 

79.  Description  necessary  in  a  reservation. 

Richter  vs.   Granite  Mfg.   Co.,   107   Texas,    58;    174 

S.  W.,  284. 
See  Notes  10,  116,   235,   246. 

80.  ' ' Oil  is  a  mineral,  and  as  a  mineral  is  part  of 
the  realty." 

Isom  vs.  Rex  Crude  Oil  Co.,  82  Pac,  317. 

Swayne  vs.  Lone  Acre  Oil  Co.,   98   Texas,   597;    86 

S.  W.,  740;  69  L.  R.  A.,  986. 
Jackson  vs.  Scoggins,  220  S.  W.,  302. 


34  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

Luse  vs.  Boatman,  217  S.  W.,  1096. 

Hudson  vs.  McGuire,  223  S.  W.,  1101,  applying  rule 

to  gas. 
Crabb  vs.  Bell,  220  S.  W.,  623. 
T.  P.  C.  &  O.  Co.  vs.  Howard,  212  S.  W.,  735. 
Kennedy  vs.  Ohio  Fuel  Oil  Co.,  101  S.  E.,  159. 
Marnett  Oil  &  Gas  Co.  vs.  Munsey,  232  S.  W.,  867. 
Hynson  vs.  Gulf  Prod.  Co.,  232  S.  W.,  873. 
Dingess  vs.  Huntington  Dev.  &  Gas  Co.,   271   Fed., 

864    (in  reservation). 
Carothers  vs.  Mills,  233  S.  W.,  155,  157. 
Op.  Atty.  Gen.,  No.  2183,  2-21-20. 
See  note  174. 

81.  The  severance  and  removal  of  oil,  except  in 
proper  cases,  is  waste. 

Isom  vs.  Rex  Crude  Oil  Co.,  82  Pac,  317. 

Carper  vs.  United  Fuel  Gas  Co.,  89  S.  E.,  12;  L.  R. 

A.,  1917  A,  171. 
See  Note  97. 

82.  A  lease  without  mention  of  minerals  or  refer- 
ence thereto  "is  a  lease  merely  of  the  superficies  of 
the  soil." 

Isom  vs.  Rex  Crude  Oil  Co.,  82  Pac,  317. 

83.  At  common  law  rescission  or  forfeiture  was 
not  allowed  unless  the  right  of  re-entry  was 
preserved  in  the  lease. 

Isom  vs.  Rex  Crude  Oil  Co.,  82  Pac,  317. 
Mercer-Lincoln  Pine  Knob  Oil  Co.  vs.  Pruitt,  2  29  S. 

W..  374. 
See  Perry  vs.  Smith,  231  S.  W.,  340. 
See  Notes  65,  73,  213. 


35  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

84.  The  consideration  for  a  lease  goes  to  the 
whole  lease. 

Corsicana  Pet.  Co.  vs.  Owens,  22  2  S.  W.,  154. 
McCray  vs.  Miller,  184  Pac,  781. 
Maud  Oil  &  Gas  Co.  vs.  Bodkin,  180  Pac,  959. 
Gypsy  Oil  Co.  vs.  Rambo,  189  Pac,  193. 
Lawrence  vs.  Mahony,  225  S.  W.,  340. 

85.  "In  proper  eases  it  is  unquestionabh'  true 
that  restoration  or  offer  to  restore  is  essential  to  a 
rescission. ' ' 

lEom  vs.  Rex  Crude  Oil  Co.,  82  Pac,  p.  319. 

See    especially    Davis    vs.    Burkholder,    218    S.    W., 

1101. 
Varnes  vs.  Dean,  228  S.  W.,  1017. 
Canon  vs.  Scott,  230  S.  W.,  1042,  1047. 
See  Note  131. 

86.  As  to  whetlier  a  lease  term  is  divisible  as 
affecting  necessity  to  repay  rentals  in  an  action  to 
cancel,  see 

Isom  vs.  Rex  Crude  Oil  Co.,  82  Pac,  p.  319. 

87.  As  to  alteration  of  a  material  term  of  an  oil 
lease,  when  duplicates  are  retained  by  l)0th  parties, 
see 

Magnolia  Petroleum  Co.  vs.  Saylor,  180  Pac,  p.  864, 

.  88.  The  fraudulent  alteration  of  an  original  oil 
lease  by  lessee  does  not  affect  his  rights  thereundei- 
where  the  lessor  has-  also  retained  an  original 
(duplicate)  of  the  lease. 

Magnolia  Petroleum  Co.  vs.  Saylor,  180  Pac,  p.  864. 


36  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

Nor  the  rights  of  lessor : 

Fleming  vs.  Head,  228  S.  W.,  302. 
See  Note  210. 

89.  One   who   signs   a   contract   in   ignorance   is 
nevertheless  bound  by  its  terms. 

Magnolia  Pet.  Co.  vs.  Saylor,  180  Pac,  p.  861,  and 

authorities  cited. 
See  Smith  vs.  Fleming,  231  S.  W.,  136. 
See  Note  121. 

90.  Estoppel  by  acceptance  of  rentals. 

Great  Western  Pet.  Corp.  vs.  Samson,  234  S.  W.,  727. 
Olsen  vs.  Erwin,  229  S.  W.,  878. 
Smith  vs.  Fleming,  231  S.  W.,  136. 
Magnolia  Pet.  Co.  vs.  Saylor,  180  Pac,  p.  865. 
Hltson  vs.  Gilman,  220  S.  W.,  140. 
S.  W.  Oil  Co.  vs.  McDaniel,  175  Pac,  p.  921. 
Corsicana  Pet.  Co.  vs.  Owens,  (Sup.)  222  S.  W.,  154. 
Ohio  Valley  Oil  &  Gas  Co.  vs.  Irvine  Dev.  Co.,  234 

S.  W.,  437. 
Bertram  Developing  Co.  vs.  Tucker,  228  S.  W.,  1027. 
De  Flores  vs.  Smith,  236  S.  W.,  505. 
See  Notes  56,   95,   104,   213,   341. 

^1.     Where  no  time  is  stipulated  for  the  payment 
of  delay  money  it  is  payable  in  advance. 

Kies  vs.  Williams,  2  28  S.  W.,  40  (Ky.). 
Maud  Oil  &  Gas  Co.  vs.  Bodkin,  180  Pac,  959. 
But  see  Bailey  vs.  Williams,  223  S.  W.,  311. 
Collins  vs.  Humble  Oil  &  Refining  Co.,  223  S.  W., 

696. 
And  see  Keen  vs.  Logan,  84  So.  501  (holding  payable 

on  demand). 
McNutt  vs.  Whitney,  232  S.  W.,  386. 


37  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

Epperson  vs.  Helbron,  225  S.  W.,  345;    15  A.  L.  R., 

597,  and  note. 
But  see  Turner  vs.  Lick  Creek  Oil  &  Gas  Co.,  234 

S.  W.,  191. 
See  Lyon  vs.  Union  Gas  &  Oil  Co.,  274  Fed.,  957. 
Burnett  Coal  Mining  Co.  vs.  Schrepferman,   133  N. 

E.,  34. 
White  vs.  Dennis,  233  S.  W.,  373. 
See  Note  128. 

92.  Owner  of  surface  rijrhts  only  can  not  com 
plain  of  drilling. 

Grimes  vs.  Goodman  Drilling  Co.,  216  S.  W.,  202. 
Davison  vs.  Reynolds,  103  S.   E.,  248. 

93.  A  life-tenant  who  takes  by  purchase  may  drill 
for  oil ;  one  Avho  takes  by  descent  may  not. 

Swayne  vs.  Lone  Acre  Oil  Co.,  98  Texas,  597;   86  S. 

W.,  740;   69  L.  R.  A.,  986. 
See  Williamson  vs.  Jones,  43  W.  Va.,  562;   38  L.  R. 

A.,  694;    27   S.  E.,  411. 
Marshall  vs.  Mellon,  179  Pa.,  371;   36  Atl.,  201;  35 

L.  R.  A.,  816;   57  Am.  St.,  601,  cited  in  Strickler 

vs.  Stanford,   197  Pac,  866. 
See  Notes  5,  22. 

94.  A  lessee  must  develop,  even  under  an  "or" 
lease,  unless  delay  can  be  equitably  excused. 

Hitson  vs.  Oilman,  220  S.  W.,  140. 

Waters  vs.  Hatfield,  190  Pac,  599,  which  see. 

See  Ohio  Valley  O.  &  G.  Co.  vs.  Dev.  Co.,  212  S.  W., 

110. 
Burt  vs.  Deorsam,  227  S.  W.,  354,  358. 
McNutt  v'^.  Whitney,  232  S.  W.,  386,  and  Bertram 

Developing  Co.  vs.  Tucker,  228  S.  W.,  1027,  both 

holding    rentals    must    be    refused,    and    demand 

for  development  made.     See  Note  1. 


38  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

Keystone  Gas  Co.  vs.  Salisbury,  234  S.  W.,  290. 

But  see  Link  vs.  State's  Oil  Corp.,  229  S.  W.,  693. 

Hynson  vs.  Gulf  Prod.  Co.,  232  S.  W.,  873. 

Clutter  vs.  Wisconsin  Texas  Oil  Co.,  233  S.  W.,  322 
(under  express  obligation  to  develop). 

See  Satterfield  vs.  Galloway,  234  S.  W.,  448 
(necessity  for  notice). 

Davenport  vs.  Schoenfelt,  229  S.  W.,  1043. 

Owens  vs.  Curd,  232  S.  W.,  p.  640. 

See  McNutt  vs.  Whitney,  232  S.  W.,  386,  for  time 
tender  postpones  right  to  development. 

Satterfield  vs.  Galloway,  234  S.  W.,  448,  discussing 
notice  and  citing  McNutt  vs.  Whitney. 

Millar  vs.  Mauney,  234  S.  W.,  498,  discussing  alter- 
native remedies. 

But  not  in  wildcat  territory. 

Lone  Star  Gas  Co.  vs.  McCullough,  220  S.  W.,  1114, 
and  see  Bost  vs.  Biggers  Bros.,  222  S.  W.,   1112. 

Nor  where  original  consideration  adequate  and 
lease  does  not  show  such  purpose. 

Bute  vs.  Porter,  228  S.  W.,  999. 
See  Notes  27,  33c,  56,  57,  143,  194. 

95.  A  lease  with  no  consideration  being  paid 
originally  can  not  be  enforced,  though  delay  money 
is  paid  and  accepted. 

Hitson  vs.  Oilman,  2  20  S.  W.,  140. 
Promise  as  consideration: 

McCaskey  vs.  Schrock,  225  S.  W.,  418. 
See  Notes  90,  104,   143. 

96.  Where  a  lease  authorizes  assigning  any  part 


39  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

by  lessee,  then  payment  of  rental  on  any  part  will 
keep  lease  operative  as  to  that  part,  even  though 
default  is  made  as  to  one  part,  in  case  of  assignment. 

Hitson  vs.  Gilman,  2  20  S.  W.,  140. 
Broyles  vs.  Gilman,  222  S.  W.,  685. 
See  Note  228. 

97.  Forfeiture  of  lease  for  commission  of  waste 
by  tenant. 

3  A.  L.  R.,  672. 

See  Carper  vs.  United  Fuel  Co.,  89  S.  E.,  12;  L.  R 

A.,  1917  A.  171. 
See  Note  81. 

98.  AYhere  land  is  not  homestead  and  wife  has 
no  separate  interest  therein,  defect  of  her  acknowl- 
edgement is  immaterial. 

Johnson  vs.  Russell,  220  S.  W.,  352. 

99.  Person  who  has  sold  his  interest  in  minerals 
can  not  declare  a  forfeiture. 

Baird  vs.  Atlas  Oil  Co.,  84  So.,  366. 

100.  A  statute  authorizing  a  guardian  to  lease 
land  for  oil  purposes  beyond  minority  is  unconsti- 
tutional. 

Lawrence  E.  Tierney  Coal  Co.  vs.  Kash,  (Ky.)  4 
A.  L.  R.,  1540,  and  note;  203  S.  W.,  731. 

But  see  Record!  vs.  Gaboury  (Tenn.),  89  S.  W„  98. 

Beaucamp  vs.  Bertig  (Ark.),  23  L.  R.  A.  (N.  S.), 
569;  119  S.  W..  7-5. 

Cabin  Valley  Mining  Co.  vs.  Hall,  L.  R.  A.,  1916  F, 
493. 


40  TEX.VS  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

See  Ross  vs.  Gill,  4  Call,  250   (Va.). 

Rogers  vs.  Harris  171  S.  W.,  809. 

Tierney  Coal  Co.  vs.  Smith's  Guardian,   203   S.  W.. 

731. 
Winona  Oil  Co.  vs.  Barnes,  200  Pac,  981. 
See  Note  107. 

101.  Exclude  the  first  and  include  the  last  day 
in  determining  term  of  lease. 

Eastern  Oil  Co.  vs.  Coulehan,  64  S.  E.,  836. 
White  \'S.  Dennis,  220  S.  W.,  161. 
Kies  vs.  Williams,  228  S.  W.,  40  (Ky.). 

102.  Lessee  is  the  one  who  determines  whether 
oil  or  gas  has  been  discovered  in  paying  quantities, 
so  long  as  he  acts  in  good  faith. 

T.  P.  C.  &  O.  Co.  vs.  Bruce,  233  S.  W.,  535. 

Manhattan  Oil  Co.  vs.  Carrell,  74  N.  E.,  1804. 

Osburn  vs.  Finkelstein,  126  N.  E.,  11. 

Colgan  vs.  Forrest  Oil  Co.,  4  5  Atl.,  119. 

Thornton,  p.  235. 

Bay  State  Pet.  Co.  vs.  Penn  Lubricating  Co.,  87  S. 

W.,  1102. 
Barbour  Steadman   &  Co.   vs.   Tompkins,   93   S.   E., 

1038. 
InBenavides  vs.  Hunt,  79  Texas,  p.  392;   15  S.  W., 

p.  399,  it  is  held  that  what  is  economy  is  to  be 

determined    by   the    lessee    while   acting   in    good 

faith. 
See  Notes  35,  336. 

103.  Without  express  provision  therefor,  a  lease 
may  not  be  forfeited. 

Collins  vs.  Humble  Oil  &  Refining  Co.,  223   S.  W., 
696,  holding  rule  applicable  to  ordinary  lease. 


41  Tex^vs  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

Johnson  vs.  Gurley,  52  Texas,  222. 

Harris  vs.   Rather,   134   S.  W.,  755. 

Grubb  vs.  McAfee,  212  S.  W.,  464. 

Hickernell  vs.  Gregory,  224  S.  W.,  691. 

Wade  vs.  Madison,  206  S.  W.,  119. 

Decker  vs.  Kirlicks,  216  S.  W.,  385. 

Pierce  vs.  T.  P.  C.  &  O.  Co.,  225  S.  W.,  193. 

Alford  vs.  Dennis,   (Kan.)   170  Pac,  1005. 

Clutter  vs.  Wisconsin  Texas  Oil  Co.,  233  S.  W.,  322 

(under  express  obligation  to  develop). 
Paraffine  Oil  Co.  vs.  Cruce,  162  Pac,  716;   14  A.  L. 

R.,  952  (holding  issue  to  be  judged  by  intention). 
Burt  vs.  Deorsam,  227  S.  W.,  354. 
Kles  vs.  Williams,  228  S.  W.,  40,  41  (Ky.). 
Buie  vs.  Porter,  228  S.  W.,  999. 
Hall  vs.  Roberts,  228  S.  W.,  1008. 
Sugg  vs.  Williams,  229  S.  W.,  72. 
Peerless  Carbon  Black  Co.  vs.  Gillespie,  105  S.  E., 

517. 
See  Notes  43,  71,  157.- 

104.  As  bearing  on  the  right  of  lessors  to  ratify 
or  waive  forfeiture  of  original  lease  (by  acceptance 
of  overdue  rentals,  or  otherwise)  to  the  detriment  of 
third  parties,  see 

Ohio  Valley  O.  &  G.  Co.  vs.  Irvin  Dev.  Co.,   212  S. 

W.,    110. 
Von  Hatzfeld  vs.  Haubert,  224  S.  W.,  220. 
See  Notes  90,  95. 

105.  Injunctions  against  mining  operations  in 
favor  of  adjacent  land  owner. 

Acts,  36  Leg.,  p.  311,  Ch.  162. 
See  Note  41. 

106.  Right  to  partition  mineral  rights. 


42  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

Acts  35th  Leg.,  p.  295,  Ch.  105. 
Vernon's  Sup.    (1918),  Art.   6096. 

107.  Right  of  guardians  to  lease  lands  of  ward 
for  mineral  purposes. 

Acts  36  Leg.,  p.  185,  Cli.  119,  R.  S.  Art.  4152a  et  seq. 
See  Note  100. 

108.  Right   of   exe<?utors  and  administrators  to 
lease  or  sell  oil  lands. 

Acts  36  Leg.,  p.   251,  Ch.   137. 

109.  Duty  of  oil  producer  to   report  to  Comp- 
troller. 

Acts  36  Leg.,  p.  128,  Ch.  77. 

To  Railroad  Commission. 

Acts  36  Leg.,  2.  S.  S.,  App.  7-25-19. 

110.  Conservation  law,  authorizing  Railroad  Com- 
mission to  make  orders,  etc. 

Acts  36  Leg.,  p.  285,  Ch.  155. 

111.  Pipe  lines  regulated,  made  common  carriers, 
etc. 

Acts  35  Leg.,  p.  48,  Ch.  30. 

Acts  36  Leg.,  p.  272,  Ch.  146,  Art.  1306. 

112.  Pipe  line  may  require  indemnity  bond  when 
transporting  oil  in  litigation. 

Rule  4,  P.  L.  Rules  &  Regulations.      7-26-19, 


43  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

113.  No  oil  well  to  be  commenced  nearer  than  300 
feet  to  another  well,  or  150  feet  from  property  line. 

Rule  37,  R.  R.  Com. 
See  Mapel  vs.  Jonn,  32  L.  R.  A.,  800. 
Kelly  vs.  Ohio  Oil  Co.,  39  L.  R.  A.,  765;    49  N.  E., 
399. 

114.  A  bank  is  agent  of  the  lessor,  and  when  the 
lessee  deposits  the  rent  in  the  bank  with  instructions 
that  it  be  placed  to  lessor's  credit  or  tenders  it,  the 
lease  has  been  complied  with,  regardless  of  whether 
the  bank  does  deposit  it  or  not,  or  accepts  it  or  not. 

Hunter  vs.  Gulf  Production  Co.,  220  S.  W.,  163. 

McKay  vs.  Kilcrease,  220  S.  W.,  17  7. 

White  vs.  Dennis,  220  S.  W.,  161. 

Tatum  vs.  Fulton,  218  S.  W.,  1088. 

Great  Western  Pet.  Corp.  vs.  Samson,  234  S.  W.,  727. 

McKay  vs.  Tally,  220  S.  W.,  167. 

Texas  Co.,  vs.  Wimberly,  213  S.  W.,  286. 

Cockrum  vs.   Christy,   223   S.   W.,    308. 

Bailey  vs.   Williams,   223   S.  W.,   311,  holding  only 

however   "in   accordance    with    the   terms   of   the 

lease"    and    bank    has   no    authority    to   accept   a 

rental  on  a  forfeited  lease. 
McNutt  vs.  Whitney,  232  S.  W.,  386. 
See,  however.  Eastern  Oil  Co.  vs.  Smith,  195  Pac, 

773. 
See  Notes  67,  141. 

115.  "Mining"  is  broad  enough  to  include  boring 
for  oil. 

Luse  vs.  Boatman,  217  S.  W.,  1096. 

116.  Effect  of  reservation  in  deed  of  mineral 
discussed,  as  affected  by 


44  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

(a)  Knowledge  of  parties  of  mineral  existing, 

(b)  Intent  to  include  mineral  of  certain  kind, 

(c)  Ejusdem  generis   (see  Note  78.), 

(d)  Decided  cases  at  date  of  deed. 

Luse  vs.  Boatman,   217  S.  W.,   1096,  cited  in  Luse 

vs.  Parmer,  221  S.  W.,  1031. 
Carothers  \-s.   Mills,   233   S.  W.,   155. 
Dingess  vs.   Huntington  Dev.  &  Gas  Co.,   271  Fed., 

864. 
See  Notes  10,  79,  235,  246. 

117.  "Surface"  defined. 

Luse  vs.  Boatman,  217  S.  W.,  1096,  cited  in  Luse  vs. 
Parmer,  221  S.  W.,  1031. 

118.  What  must  appear  in  suit  to  rescind  for  in- 
adequacy of  consideration. 

Hunter  vs.  Gulf  Production  Co.,  220  S.  W.,  163. 
See  Note  142. 

119.  Is  a  lessee  an  "owner  of  land"? 

Texas  Bank  &  Trust  Co.  vs.  Smith,  108  Texas,  265, 

2   A.  L.  R.,  771. 
Benavides  vs.  Hunt,  79  Texas,  383;  15  S.  W.,  396. 
See  Note  252. 

120.  Facts  amounting  to  abandonment. 

Grubb  vs.  McAfee,  212  S.  W.,  464. 
Strange  vs.  Hicks,  188  Pac,  347. 
See  Pierce  vs.  T.  P.  &  O.  Co.,  225  S.  W.,  193. 
Hurt  vs.  Garvin,  227  S.  W.,  811   (Ky.). 
Pratt  vs.  Hayes,  226  S.  W.,  362. 
Scott  vs.  Laws,  215  S.  W.,  81. 
Tucker  vs.  Canfield,  276  Fed.,  385. 
Luman  vs.  Davis,  196  Pac,  1078. 


45  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

Marnett  Oil  &  Gas  Co.  vs.  Munsey,  232  S.  W.,  867. 
Monarch  O.  &  G.  Co.  vs.  Hunt,  235  S.  W.,  772. 
See  Notes  24,  310. 

121.  Mistake  that  is  unilaterial  only,  as  bearing 
on  right  to  rescind. 

Price  vs.  Biggs,  217  S.  W.,  236. 
See  Note  89. 

122.  Construction  of  two  repugnant  clauses. 
Price  vs.  Biggs,  217  S.  W.,  236. 

123.  Distinction  between  limitation  as  to  use  and 
limitation  as  to  title  in  deed.  The  w^ords  ''for  a 
cemetery"  in  deed  merely  suspend,  not  withhold, 
power  of  grantee  to  sell. 

Barker  vs.  Hazel-Fain  Oil  Co.,  219  S.  W.,  874. 

T.  W.  Phillips  Gas  &  Oil  Co.  vs.  Lingenfelter  (Pa.). 

105  Atl.,  888;   5  A.  L.  R.,  1495,  and  note. 
See  Note  200. 

124.  Conveyance  for  purpose  of  cemetery  fol- 
lowed by  user,  amounts  to  dedication. 

Barker  vs.  Hazel-Fain  Oil  Co.,  219  S.  W.,  874. 
See  T.   W.   Phillips  Gas  &  Oil  Co.  vs.  Lingenfelter 
(Pa.),  105  Atl.,  888;   5  A.  L.  R.,  1495,  and  note. 

125.  Right  of  relatives  of  persons  buried  in  a 
graveyard  to  prevent  spoliation  by  injunction. 

Barker  vs.  Hazel-Fain  Oil  Co.,  219  S.  W.,  874. 

126.  A  power  to  "sell"  whether  conferred  by  a 
quarterly    conference    of    a    Methodist    church,    a 


46  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

charter  of  a  corporation,  or  a  power  of  attorney, 
does  not  include  the  power  to  "exchange." 

Barker  vs.  Hazel-Fain  Oil  Co.,  219  S.  W.,  874. 

127.  Tender  of  rentals  unnecessary  where  lessor 
declares  he  will  not  accept  if  tendered  or  repudiates 
the  contract. 

White  vs.  Dennis,  220  S.  W.,  161. 
Burt  vs.  Deorsam,  227  S.  W.,  354. 
See  Note  301. 

128.  Rentals  must  be  paid  in  due  time  under  an 
"unless"  lease,  and  in  ease  of  failure  of  the  lessee 
to  so  pay,  the  aetion  being  to  declare  the  lease 
terminated  and  not  to  rescind,  it  is  immaterial  that 
the  lessee  had  a  good  excuse  for  nonpayment,  or 
that  the  lessor  was  not  damaged,  or  that  the  lessor 
did  not  declare  a  forfeiture. 

Gillespie  vs.  Bobo,  271  Fed.,  641. 

Weiss  vs.  Claborn,  219  S.  W.,  884. 

Ford  vs.  Barton,  224  S.  W.,  268. 

Appling  vs.  Morrison,  227  S.  W.,  708. 

Kies  vs.   Williams,    228   S.   W.,   40    (Ky.)    (limiting 

rule  to  "unless"  lease). 
See  Eastern  Oil  Co.  vs.  Smith,  195  Pac,  773,  holding 

"unless"   clause   is   an   option   to   surrender.      On 

this  point  see  Note  69. 
But  see  Lyon   vs.   Union   Gas  &   Oil   Co.,   274   Fed., 

957,  holding  rentals  need  not  be  paid  in  advance 

even  under  "unless"   lease,   where  it  is  provided 

rentals  may  be  paid  "thereafter." 
See  Notes  44,  45,  69,  75,  157,  234,  269,  287. 

129.  For  distinction  between  action  for  failure  to 


47  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

pay    rental    under    an    ''or"  lease   and  under  an 
^'unless"  lease. 

Weiss  vs.  Claborn,  219  S.  W.,  884. 

Jackson  vs.  Moore,   191  Pac,  590. 

Zeigler,  etc.,  vs.  Hopkins,  etc.,  258  Fed.,  467. 

259  Fed.,  43. 

Turner  vs.  Lick  Creek  Oil  &  Gas  Co.,  234  S.  W.,  191. 

See  Notes  128,  269.  * 

130.  Notary's  certificate  is  conclusive  except  in 
ease  of  fraud  or  misrepresentation. 

Oar  vs.  Davis,  105  Texas,  p.  487. 

Fagan  vs.  Texas  Co.,  220  S.  W.,  346. 

Davis  vs.  Burkholder,  218  S.  W.,  1101. 

Texas  Co.  vs.  Keeter,  219  S.  W.,  521. 

But  see  Hamilton  Co.  Dev.  Co.  vs.  Sullivan,  220  S. 

W.,   116,  citing  136  S.  W.,   86,  and  holding  rule 

applies  only  in  innocent  purchaser  case. 
And  see  Crabb  vs.  Bell,  220  S.  W.,  623,  limiting  rule 

to  innocent  purchasers. 
Also,  Richmond  vs.  Hog  Creek  Oil  Co.,   229   S.  W., 

563. 

131.  Offer  to  do  equity  and  repay  rentals  is 
essential  in  action  to  rescind,  except  as  afrainst 
assignee  of  original  grantor;  and  if  petition  shows 
payment  it  is  demurrable  if  no  offer  to  repay  is  made. 

Davis  vs.  Burkholder,  218  S.  W.,  1101. 
See  Notes  85,  86,  192. 

132.  Misrepresentations  by  lessee  Avhich  induce 
execution  of  oil  lease,  and  cause  lessor  to  sign  a 
lease  different  from  the  representations,  as  ground 
for  rescission. 


48  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

Davis  vs.  Burkholder,  218  S.  W.,  1101  (but  perhaps 
this  does  not  apply  where  suit  is  not  to  cancel 
a  lease  which  was  never  made  according  to  inten- 
tion of  parties). 

But  see: 

Link  vs.  Page,  72  Texas,  592. 

Ry.  vs.  Fenn,  76  S.  W.,  597. 

Black  on  Rescission,  Sec.  52. 

Texas  Co.  vs.  Keeter,  219  S.  W.,  521. 

Smith  vs.  Fleming,  231  S.  W.,  136  (as  to  what 
lease  contains.     See  Note  89). 

Richmond  vs.  Hogg  Creek  Oil  Co.,  229  S.  W.,  563, 
(must  result  injuriously). 

See  Note  192. 

133.  Character  of  ort^anization  of  joint-stock  asso- 
ciation with  especial  reference  to  tenure  of  trustees 
as  affecting  parties  to  suit  to  appoint  receiver.  Trust 
and  partnership  distinguished. 

Bingham  vs.  Graham,  220  S.  W.,  105. 

See  substitute  opinion  on  rehearing,  3-17-20. 

Davis  vs.  Hudgins,  225  S.  W.,  73. 

13-1,  What  facts  authorize  appointment  of  a  re- 
reiver  to  replace  trustee. 

Bingham  vs.  Graham,  220  S.  W.,  105. 

See  substitute  opinion  on  rehearing,   3-17-20. 

Davis  vs.  Hudgins,  2  25  S.  W.,  73. 

135.  As  to  when  receiver  will  be  appointed  ex 
parte.  , 

Bingham  vs.  Graham,  220  S.  W.,  105. 

See  substitute  opinion  on  rehearing,  3-17-20. 

Davis  vs.  Hudgins,   225   S.   W.,   73. 


49  Texas  Oil  axd  Gas  Decisions. 

136.  ' '  Completion  of  a  well ' '— ' '  completed  well ' ' 
— defined. 

Frost  vs.  Martin,  203  S.  W.,  72. 

Hall  vs.  McClesky,  228  S.  \V.,  1004. 

Uncle  Sam  Oil  Co.  vs.  Richards,  184  Pac,  575. 

Kles  vs.  Williams,  228  S.  W.,  40  (Ky.).  ("Completed 

well"  need  not  be  producer.) 
Sugg  vs.   Williams,    229    S.    W.,    72    (as   bearing   on 

necessity  of  paying  rentals). 
T.  P.  C.  &  O.  Co.  vs.  Harris,  230  S.  W.,  2S7. 
See  Note   276. 

137.  Rights  of  mortgagee  with  reference  to  royal- 
ties and  rents. 

Sullivan  vs.  Rosson,  4  A.  L.  R.,  1400  and  note. 

138.  That,  where  payment  of  rental  falls  due  on 
Sunday,  payment  on  Monday  is  sufficient,  see 

Semans  vs.  Adams,  228  S.  W.,  353. 
Plummer  vs.  So.  Oil  Co.,  214  S.  W.,  89G.      (Ky.) 
But  see  McLaughlin  vs.  Brock,  225  S.  W.,  575,  con- 
struing "unless"  lease. 
See  Note  43. 

139.  A  reservation  of  a  pipe  line  right  of  way 
strip  at  side  of  lots,  will  not  control  over  deed  con- 
veying the  fee  title  to  the  strip,  and  the  u?e  of  the 
strip  by  grantor  will  be  limited  to  the  use  for  which 
the  reservation  was  created. 

Gulf  Sulphur  Co.  vs.  Ryan,  221  S.  W.,  310. 

140.  Specific  performance  will  not  lie  to  compel 
the  drilling  of  wells  contracted  to  be  drilled. 


50  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

Bois  D'Aic  Creek  Oil  &  Gas  Co.  vs.  S.  W.  Oil  Carp., 
219  S.  W.,  1115. 

141.  A  check,  if  accepted  by  the  bank,  is  a  suffi- 
cient deposit. 

Tatum  vs.  Fulton,   218   S.  W.,  1088. 
See  Notes  67,  114. 

142.  As  to  when  inadequacy  of  consideration  will 
be  of  controlling  effect. 

Nolan  vs.  Young,   220  S.  W.,    154. 
McKay  vs.  Tally,  220  S.  W.,  167. 
See  Note  118. 

143.  Right  of  party  seeking  to  cancel  or  rescind 
to  show  real  motive  was  to  obtain  test  well,  where 
contract  recites  a  paid  consideration. 

Nolan  vs.  Young,   220  S.   W.,   154. 

McCaskey  vs.  Schrock,   225   S.   W.,   418. 

See  Bost  vs.  Biggers  Bros.,  222  S.  W.,  1112. 

Davis  vs.  Texas  Co.,  232  S.  W.,  549. 

Keystone  Gas  Co.  vs.  Salisbury,  234  S.  W.,  290. 

Millar  vs.  Mauney,  234  S.  W.,  498. 

Bertram  Dev.  Co.  vs.  Tucker.  228  S.  W.,  1027. 

Davenport  vs.  Schoenfelt,  22  9  S.  W.,  1043. 

Buie  vs.  Porter,  228  S.  W.,  999. 

Burt  vs.  Deorsam,  227  S.  W.,  354. 

McCaskey  vs.  McCall,  226  S.  W.,  432. 

Epperson  vs.  Helbron,  22  5  S.  W.,  345. 

Johnson  vs.  Russell,  220  S.  W.,  352. 

See  Notes  94,  191,  297. 

144.  Consideration  supporting  a  contract  must  be 
that  which  induces  the  contract,  not  an  expense  a 
party  is  put  to  on  account  of  the  contemplated  con- 
tract. 


51  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

Texas  Co.  vs.  Dunn,  219  S.  W.,  300. 

145.  Effect  of  a  lessor  taking  time  to  investigate 
before  entering  lease  contract. 

Nolan  vs.  Young,  220  S.  W.,  154. 

Bost  vs.  Diggers  Bros.,  222  S.  W.,  1112. 

146.  "Mining  partnerships"  discussed  and  dis- 
tinguished from  usual  partnerships. 

Oil  Lease,  etc.,  Syndicate  vs.  Beeler,  217  S.  W.,  1054 
Harris  vs.  Young,  131  N.  E.,  670. 
See  Note  263. 

147.  Power  of  trial  judge  to  issue  injunction 
without  bond. 

Oil  Lease,  etc..  Syndicate  vs.  Beeler,  217  S.  W.,  1054. 
See  R.  S.,  Art.  4643A. 

148.  Injunction  in  favor  of  one  lessee  against 
another  adverse  lessee,  for  drilling,  will  not  be 
granted  when  no  oil  is  produced,  and  it  is  not  shown 
that  oil  will  or  will  not  be  produced,  mere  trespass 
being  rarely  enjoined. 

Browning  vs.  Hinerman,  224  S.  W.,  236. 

149.  Injunction  against  conjectural  damage  or 
abstract  wrongs  will  not  be  allowed. 

Browning  vs.  Hinerman,  224  S.  W.,  236. 

150.  Right  of  applicant  for  injunction  to  relief  is 
insufficient  to  authorize  injunction ;  the  relief  must 
"require  the  restraint  of  some  act  prejudical  to  the 
applicant" — practically  the  irreparable  injury  rule. 


52  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

Browning  vs.  Hinerman,  224  S.  W.,  236. 

See  Collins  vs.  Humble  Oil  &  Ref.  Co.,  223  S.  W., 

696. 
See  Note  39. 

151.  Unproven  bank  deposit  slips  are  not  groper 
evidence  of  paymnt  of  rentals. 

Browning  vs.  Hinerman,  224  S.  W.,  236. 

152.  Effect  of  omission  of  description  of  land 
which  is  homestead,  in  lease  by  husband  and  wife, 
where  such  description  is  not  to  be  inserted  until 
after  the  instrument  is  acknowledged. 

Finkelstein  vs.  Roberts,  220  S.  W.,  401. 
See  Note  210. 

153.  Rights  of  attorney  employed  to  cancel  lease 
with  contingent  fee,  when  plaintiffs  compromise. 

Finkelstein  vs.  Roberts,  220  S.  W.,  401. 

154.  Action  to  cancel  lease  may  be  joined  witli 
trespass  to  try  title. 

Canon  vs.  Scott,  217  S.  W.,  429. 

See  134  S.  W.,  p.  275. 

See  McCallister  vs.  Texas  Co.,  223  S.  W.,  85». 

See  Note  15. 

155.  Query,  whether  Constitution  forbids  oil  lease 
on  homestead  because  it  involves  a  "condition  of 
defeasance." 

Browning  vs.  Hinerman,   224  S.   W.,   236. 

156.  Essential  allegations  in  suit  to  rescind  on 
ground  of  fraud. 


53  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

Texas  Co.  vs.  Keeter,  219  S.  W.,  521. 

Hickernell  vs.  Gregory,  224  S.  W.,  691. 

Long  vs.  Calloway,  220  S.  W.,  414. 

Von  Hatzfeld  vs.  Haubert,  224  S.  W.,  220. 

Morris  vs.  McGough,  230  S.  W.,  1092,  holding  (a) 
fraud  as  conclusion  need  not  be  alleged,  and  (b) 
suppression  of  truth  is  fraudulent,  and  (c)  what 
constitutes  fraud. 

Smith  vs.  Fleming,  231  S.  W.,  136  (as  to  what  pro- 
visions lease  contains.  See  Note  89.  See  case  for 
rule  as  to  diligence  in  filing  suit). 

Cooper  vs.  Casselberry,  230  S.  W.,  231. 

See  Acts  1919,  Ch.  43,  R.  S.  Art.  3973a. 

See  Note  191. 

157.  A  farfeiture  of  an  "or"  lease  will  not  be 
decreed  for  failure  to  drill  or  pay,  unless  the  failure 
amounts  to  abandonment. 

Hickernell  vs.  Gregory,  224  S.  W.,  691. 
See  Notes  8,  43,  44,  45,  75,  103,  128,  234. 

158.  Oil  is  capable  of  being  owned  separetely 
from  the  soil. 

Benavldes  vs.  Hunt,  79  Texas,  p.  390;   15  S.  W.,  p. 

398-9. 
Renfro  vs.  Hanon,  130  N.  E.,  740. 
Marnett  Oil  &  Gas  Co.  vs.  Munsey,  232  S.  W.,  807. 
Luman    vs.    Davis,    196    Pac,    1078,    holding    what 

words  necessary  to  effect  severance. 
Strunk  vs.   Morris  Run  Coal  Mining  Co.,   114  Atl., 

519. 
Atty.  Gen'ls  Op.   2183,  2-21-20. 
Virginia  Coal  &  Iron  Co.  vs.  Richmond,  104  S.  E., 

805,  which  see  as  to  who  may  sever. 
Sun  Lumber  Co.  vs.  Nelson  Fuel  Co.,  106  S.  E.,  41, 

holding   grant   of   timber   to   be   used   in   mining 

creates  a  license. 


54  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

Georgia  Peruvian  Ochre  Co.  vs.  Cherokee  Ochre  Co., 

108   S.  E.,  609. 
Beulah  Coal  Mining  Co.  vs.  Heihn,  180  N.  W.,  787 

(grant  or  exception). 
See  Note  292. 

159.  A  lease  for  mining  coal  providing  no  time 
for  beginning  operations,  or  no  royalty  for  non- 
operation,  is  forfeitable  as  being  invalid  for  lack  of 
mutuality,  at  the  will  of  the  lessor. 

Daniel  Boone  Coal  Co.  vs.  Miller,  217  S.  W.,  666. 
Grow  vs.  Davis,  203  Pac,  683. 
Miller  vs.  Oden,  90  So.,  167. 

160.  Construction  placed  by  parties  on  lease  con- 
tract binds  the  courts. 

T.  P.  C.  &  O.  Co.  vs.  Harris,  230  S.  W.,  237. 

Ohio  Oil  Co.  vs.  Burch,  124  N.  E.,  787. 

Young  vs.  Jones,  222  S.  W.,  691. 

Eldora  Oil  Co.  vs.  Thompson,  230  S.  W.,  738. 

White  vs.  Dennis,  233  S.  W.,  373. 

Primmer  vs.  C.  C.  Harris  Oil  Co.,  196  Pac,  921. 

161.  Right  of  Legislature  to  restrict  to  bej'ond 
100  feet  of  railways  the  drilling  of  oil  wells,  upheld 
as  proper  exercise  of  police  power. 

Winkler  vs.  Anderson,  3  A.  L.  R.,  268;  177  Pac,  521. 
See  Mapel  vs.  John,  32  L.  R.  A.,  800. 
Kelly  vs.  Ohio  Oil  Co.,  39  L.  R.  A.,  765;    49  N.  E., 
399. 

162.  Extraction  of  gasoline  from  gas  as  affecting 
liability  of  lessee. 


55  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

Wolf  vs.  Blackwell  Oil  Co.,  186  Pac,  484. 

Weraple  vs.  Producers  Oil  Co.,  83  So.,  232, 

Lock  vs.  Russell,  84  S.  E.,  948. 

See  State  vs.  Hobart  Iron  Co.,  176  N.  W.,  758. 

Twin  Hills  Gasoline  Co.  vs.  Bradford  Oil  Corp.,  264 

Fed.,   440. 
Locke  vs.  Russell.  84  S.  E.,  948;   75  W.  Va.,  602. 

163.  A  contract  to  convey  the  homestead  can  not 
he  specifically  enforced. 

I 

Const.  Art.  16,  Sec.  50. 

R.  S.,  Arts.  1115  and  4621. 

Jackson  vs.  Scoggins,  220  S.  W.,  302. 

Burnett  vs.  Mitchell,  158  S.  W.,  800. 

Richardson  vs.  Terry,  212  S.  W.,  523. 

Blue  vs.  Conner,  219  S.  W.,  533. 

Crabb  vs.  Bell,  220  S.  W.,  623,  and  cases  cited 
holding  rul-e  otherwise  where  another  homestead 
has  been  acquired.  And  on  effect  of  acquisition 
of  another  homestead,  see  Fisher  vs.  Gult"  Prod. 
Co.,  231  S.  W.,  450. 

See  Note  189. 

164.  ]\Iay  there  be  an  escrow  where  there  is  not 
a  binding  contract? 

Simpson  vs.  Green,  231  S.  W.,  375. 

Blue  vs.  Conner,  219  S.  W.,  533. 

See  Townsend  vs.  Day,  224  S.  W.,   283,  but  see  on 

rehearing. 
See  Jackson  vs.  Scoggins,  220  S.  W.,  302. 
Pearson  vs.  Kirkpatrick,  225  S.  W:,  407. 

165.  As  to  whether  a  lease  executed  by  prospec- 
tive lessor  and  placed  in  bank,  where  prospective 
lessee  is  not  bound  (by  contract  showing  conditions 


56  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

of   escrow),   is   enforceable,   under   the    Statute   of 
Frauds,  in  an  action  for  specific  performance. 

Simpson  vs.  Green,  231  S.  W.,  375. 

Crabb  vs.  Bell,  220  S.  W.,  623. 

Jackson  vs.  Scoggins,  220  S.  W.,  302,  applying  rule 

to  wife's  homestead. 
Blue  vs.  Conner,  219  S.  W.,  533. 
Townsend  vs.  Day,  224  S.  W.,  283. 
See  on  rehearing,  5-29-20,  citing  notation  of  Sup.  Ct. 

in  granting  writ  in  Simpson  vs.  Green,  212  S.  W., 

263. 
Pearson  vs.  Kirkpatrick,  225  S.  W.,  407. 

166.  Right  to  recover  a  recited  though  unpaid 
consideration, 

McKay  vs.  Tally,  220  S.  W.,  167. 

167.  Right  of  grantor  to  dispute  payment  of 
recited  consideration. 

McKay  vs.  Tally,  220  S.  W.,  167. 

See  Stephenson  vs.  Stitz,  235  S.  W.,  271. 

168.  Even  where  no  original  consideration  is  paid 
for  a  lease  which  is  merely  an  option,  the  payment  of 
rentals  makes  it  a  binding  contract. 

McKay  vs.  Tally,  220  S.  W.,  167. 

De  Flores  vs.  Smith,  236  S.  W.,  p.  507. 

And  it  seems  that  the  recitation  of  payment  is 
binding  on  appellate  court,  though  trial  court  found 
consideration  was  not  paid. 

McKay  vs.  Lucas,  220  S.  W.,  172. 

But  see  Burt  vs.  Deorsam.  227  S.  W.,  354. 


57  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

Likewise,  entry  and  development  acquiesced  in 
renders  such  a  lease  binding. 

Von  Hatzfeld  vs.  Haubert,  224  S.  W.,  220. 

169.  The  revocation  of  an  offer  must  be  commu- 
nicated to  the  offeree. 

McKay  vs.  Tally,  220  S.  W.,  167. 

170.  A  recited  consideration,  being  an  obligation 
to  pay,  will  support  a  lease,  though  unpaid. 

McKay  vs.  Tally,  220  S.  W.,  167. 

But  see  Hitson  vs.  Oilman,  220  S.  W.,  140. 

Burt  vs.  Deorsam,  227  S.  W.,  354. 

171.  Where  a  .joint  lessor  is  not  made  a  party  in 
a  suit  to  cancel,  the  appellate  court  will  remand. 

McKay  vs.  Phillips,  220  S.  W.,  176. 

Pee  Patton  vs.  T.  P.  C.  &  O.  Co.,  225  S.  W.,  857. 

See  Note  268. 

172.  Defect  of  parties  plaintiff  may  always  be 
taken  advantage  of,  even  fo-r  the  first  time  in  the 
appellate  court. 

McKay  vs.  Peterson,   220  S.  W.,   179. 

But  see  Patton  vs.  T.  P.  C.  &  O.  Co.,  225  S.  W.,  857. 

Bonner  vs.  Texarkana,   227   S.  W.,   505.    (Appellate 

Court  will  notice  absence  of  indispensible  parties.) 
Barmore  vs.  Darragh,   227   S.   W.,   522.      (Appelate 

Court  will  notice  absence  of  indispensible  parties.) 

173.  "License"  and  "lease"  distinguished. 
Priddy  vs.  Green,   220  ^^.  W.,  243. 


58  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

See  L.  R.  A.,  1917  D,  1125. 

T.  p.  C.  &  O.  Co.  vs.  Fox,  228  S.  W..  1021. 

Rees  vs.  Emmons  Coal  Mining  Co.,  106  S.  E,,  247, 

distinguishing  license  from  title. 
Davis  vs.  Texas  Co.,  232  S.  W.,  p.  560. 

174.  Agreement  to  deliver  oil  to  be  produced  must 
be  in  writing. 

Priddy  vs.  Green,  220  S.  W.,  243. 

Benavides  vs.  Hunt,  79  Texas,  p.  390;   15  S.  W.,  p. 

399. 
See  Note  80. 

175.  An  oil  lease  must  be  in  writing. 

Benavides  vs.  Hunt,  79  Texas,  p.  390;    15  S.  W.,  p. 

399. 
Priddy  vs.  Green,  220  S.  W.,  243. 
Texas  Co.  vs.  Tankersley,  229  S.  W.,  672. 
Townsend  vs.  Day,  224  S.  W.,  283. 

176.  An  assignment  of  an  oil  lease  must  be  in 
writing. 

Benavides  vs.  Hunt,  79  Texas,  p.  390;   15  S.  W.,  p. 

399. 
Pantaze  vs.  McDill,  228  S.  W.,  962. 
Priddy  vs.  Green,  220  S.  W.,  243. 
But  see  op.  on  rehearing,  4-7-20. 

177.  A  contract  to  assign  an  oil  lease  must  be  in 
writing. 

Benavides  vs.  Hunt,  79  Texas,  p.  390;    15  S.  W.,  p. 

399. 
Priddy  vs.  Green,  220  S.  W.,  243. 


59  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

178.  Must  the  authority  of  an  agent  to  make  con- 
tract for  sale  of  land  be  in  writing? 

Priddy  vs.  Green,  220  3.  W.,  243. 
See:  2  Ann.  Cas.  p.  185. 

Friedman  vs.  Suttle,  9  L.  R.  A.   (N.  S.),  933. 
44  L.  R.  A.,  601. 

10  L.  R.  A.,  p.  103.     Note  Elliott  on  Contracts,  Sec. 
2901. 

179.  Disclosed  and  undisclosed  principal  in  con- 
tract for  sale  of  real  estate, 

Priddy  vs.  Green,  220  S.  W.,  243. 

180.  Estoppel  of  owner,  where  land  sold  by  an- 
other with  his  consent. 

Priddy  vs.  Green,  220  S.  W.,  243. 
See  op.  on  rehearing,  4-7-20. 

181.  Specific  performance  under  (a)  an  option 
contract  where  forfeit  money  must|  be  taken  as 
liquidated  damages,  and  (b)  a  contract  for  sale,  in 
which  forfeit  money  may  be  taken  down  or  per- 
formance enforced. 

Scarborough  vs.  Ward,  220  S.  W.,  274. 
See  La  Prelle  vs.  Brown,  220  S.  W.,  151. 
Moss  vs.  Wren  (Sup.),  120  S.  W.,  84  7. 
Settle  vs.  Winters,  10  Pac,  216. 
Garrard  vs.  Cantrell,  232  S.  W.,  911.      (Liquidated 
damages.) 

182.  Combination  of  acts  which  will  amount  to 
conspiracy  to  obtain  land  by  fraud,  so  as  to  result 
in  trust  in  favor  of  vendor. 


60  Texas  Oil  akd  Gas  Decisions. 

Scarborough  vs.  Ward,  220  S.  W.,  274. 

183.  In  suit  to  establish  a  resulting  trust  or  to 
rescind  for  fraud,  the  vendor  may  not  be  compelled 
to  accept  the  difference  between  amount  actually 
paid  and  what  should  have  been  paid. 

Scarborough  vs.  Ward,  220  S.  W.,  274. 

184.  Effect  of  defective  statement  of  venue  in 
scilicet  of  notary's  certificate  of  acknowledgment. 

Reynolds  vs.  Morton,  136  Pac,  795,  citing  Alexander 
vs.  Houghton,  86  Texas,  702;   26  S.  W.,  937. 

185.  One  dollar,  as  consideration  moving  lessof 
to  waive  forfeiture  on  that  part  of  land  for  v/hich 
rentals  are  paid  by  one  assignee  and  not  paid  on 
balance  of  land,  is  insufficient  to  relate  back  and 
support  original-  lease,  or  operate  as  an  estoppel 
though  it  will  support  such  supplemental  agreement. 

Hitson  vs.  Oilman,  220  S.  W.,  140    (on  rehearing). 

186.  Evidence  of  what  plaintiff  refused  from 
another  person  is  admissible  in  an  action  for  damages 
against  lessee  on  account  of  fraud,  where  it  has  been 
pleaded. 

Moorman  vs.  Small,  220  S.  W.,  127. 

187.  Under  allegation  of  fraud  as  to  particular 
transaction,  evidence  admissible  to  similar  acts  and 
conduct  at  or  about  the  same  time. 

Moorman  vs.  Small,  2?0  S.  W.,  127. 


61  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

Posey  vs.  Hansen,  196  S.  W.,  731. 

Smith  vs.  Fleming,  231  S.  W.,  136,  138-9. 

188.  Bill  of  exceptions  must  be  filed  to  order 
refusing  motion  for  continuance. 

Texas  City  Terminal  Co.  vs.  Thomas,  178  S.  W.,  707. 
Hardin  vs.  Hanson,  220  S.  W.,  368. 

189.  A  lease  on  homestead  placed  in  escrow  may 
be  retracted  by  ■wife  at  any  time  prior  to  delivery. 

Jackson  vs.   Scoggins,   220   S.   W.,   302. 
See  Maynard  vs.  Gilliam,  225  S.  W.,  818. 
See  Note  163. 

190.  Executory  contract  for  exchange  of  land 
may  be  rescinded  where  one  party  fails  to  perform 
a  promise  amounting  to  consideration. 

Long  vs.  Calloway,  220  S.  W.,  414. 

191.  Right  to  rescind  on  ground  of  false  or 
fraudulent  promise  to  do  certain  acts  in  the  future. 

Long  vs.  Calloway,  220  S.  W.,  414. 

Greenameyer  vs.  McFarlane,   220   S.  W.,   613    (con 
sidering  necessary  allegations  and  distinguishing 
false  and   fraudulent  representations). 

Thomason  vs.  McEntire,  233  S.  W.,  616. 

Fraud  must  be  as  to  past  or  present  fact,  in  order 
to  rescind,  unless  there  is  an  intent  to  deceive. 

C.  T.   &  M.  C.  Ry.  Co.,  vs.  Titterington,   84   Texas, 

218;  19  S.  W.,  472. 
See  Lawrence  vs.  Mahony,  225  S.  W.,  340. 


62  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

Cooper  vs.  Cast-elberry,  230  S.  W.,  231. 
See  Notes  143,  156. 

192.  Misrepresentations    upon    which    rescission 
may  be  decreed : 

Waggoner  vs.  Zundelowitz,  231  S.  W.,  721. 

Garett  vs.  Green,  164  S.  W.,  1105.  (Representatiou 
as  to  value.) 

Black  on  Rescission,  Par.  79.  (Representation  as 
to  value.) 

Boles  vs.  Aldridge,  153  S.  W.,  373. 

Newton  vs.  Ganss,  26  S.  W.,  81. 

Mitchell  vs.  Zimmerman,  4  Texas,  76. 

Lee  vs.  Hall,  114  S.  W..  418. 

Hawkins  vs.  Wells.  43  S.  W.,  818. 

Riggins  vs.  Tricky,  102  S.  W.,  918. 

See  especially  Massirer  vs.  Milam,  223  S.  W.,  302. 

Buchanan  vs.  Burnett,  102  Texas,  492;  119  S.  W.,. 
1141. 

White  vs.  Peters,  185  S.  "W.,  659;  Richmond  vs. 
Hog  Creek  Oil  Co.,  229  S.  W.,  563. 

Stewart  vs.  McAlister,  209  S.  W.,  704. 

Simpson  vs.  Green,  231  S.  W.,  375. 

Fisher  vs.  Gulf  Prod.  Co.,  231  S.  W.,  450,  misrepre- 
sentation of  matter  of  law. 

Morton  vs.  Brinks,  19  7  Pac,  210,  which  see  as  ta 
necessity  of  tender  by  plaintiff. 

Hester  vs.  Shuster,  234  S.  W.,  713. 

Smith  vs.  Fleming,  231  S.  W.,  136.  (Representa- 
tions as  to  contents  of  lease.  See  Note  89.  Case 
seems  to  hold  that  diligence  in  filing  suit  is  re- 
quired but  not  care  in  trusting  lessee.) 

See  Note   132. 

193.  Lessor  who  is  in  default  can  not  complain 
of  non-development  by  lessee. 

Leonard  vs.  Buscb  Everett  Co.  (La.),  72  So.,  749. 


63  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

Brewster  vs.  Lanyon  Zinc  Co.,  140  Fed.,  p.  815. 
Consumers  Gas  Trust  Co.  vs.  Ink   (Ind..'     71   Is    E 

477,  479. 
Consumers  Gas  Trust  Co.  vs.  Worth,  71  N.  E.,  p.  489 
Eastern  Oil  Co.  vs.  Coulehan  (W.  Va.),  64  S.  E.,  836. 
Jennings  vs.  So.  Carbon  Co.  (W.  Va.),  94  S.  E.,  363, 

365. 
Weaver  Mining  Co.  vs.  Guthrie,  175  S.  W.,  118. 
Pyle  vs.  Henderson  (W.  Va.),  46  S.  E.,  791. 
McCallister  vs.  Texas  Co.,  223  S.  W.,  859,  and  case-s 

fited. 
Ohio  Fuel  Oil  Co.  vs.  Greenleaf,  99  S.  E.,  274. 
See  Notes,  202,  262. 

194.  IMeasure  of  damages  for  non-development  in 
absence  of  drainage. 

Bradford  Oil  Co.  vs.  Blair  (Pa.),  4  Atl.,  218. 
Daughetee  vs.  Ohio  Oil  Co.   (111.),  105  N.  E.,  308. 
Grass  vs.  Development  Co.   (W.  Va.),  84  S.  E.,  750. 
Guffey  Pet.  Co.  vs.  Chaisson,  107  S.  W.,  609. 
Thornton,  Sec.  839. 
See  Notes  33  c,  56,  57,  94. 

195.  Jury  is  not  required  to  find  in  accordance 
with  testimony  of  interested  witnesses,  even  though 
uncontradicted. 

Pickrell  vs.  Imperial  Pet.  Co.,  231  S.  W.,  412. 
■   Fagan  vs.  Texas  Cd.,  220  S.  W.,  346,  citing: 
A.  T.  &  S.  P.  Ry.  Co.  vs.  Lucas,  148  S.  W.,  1149. 
Thomas  vs.  Saunders,  150  S.  W.,  769. 
Gonzales  vs.  Adoue,  59  S.  W.,  585. 
See  also.  Bank  vs.  McWhorter,  179  S.  W.,  1147. 
Herman  vs.  Robison,  63  S.  W.,  658. 
Burleson  vs.  Tinnln,  100  S.  W.,  351. 
Peerless  Fire  Ins.  Co.  vs.  Barcus,  227  S.  W.,  368. 

196.  Effect  of  consolidation  of  depository  bank 
with  another  bank. 


64  Texas  Oil  axd  Gas  Decisions, 

Fagan  vs.  Texas  Co.,  220  S.  W.,  346. 

197.  AVhere,  in  suits  against  trustees,  the  benefi- 
ciary need  not  be  made  a  party — referring  to  trus- 
tees for  joint  stock  company,  etc. 

Bingham  vs.  Graham  (on  rehearing),  220  S.  W.,  105. 

198.  When  is  an  instrument ' ' filed ' '  in  the  Clerk 's 
Office? 

Jones  vs.  MacCorquodale,  218  S.  W.,  59,  holding 
paper  must  reach  his  oflBce,  though  handed  to 
clerk  outside  office.  See  peculiar  wording  of 
statute. 

See  Great  Western  Pet.  Corp.  vs.  Samson,  234  S.  W., 
727. 

199.  Priority    of    filings    of    apparently    simul 
taneously  filed  instruments  in  County  Clerk's  office. 

Jones  vs.  MacCorquodale,  218  S.  W.,  59. 

200.  Effect  of  expression  "for  school  purposes 
only"  in  a  deed. 

T.  W.  Phillips  Gas  &  Oil  Co.  vs.  Lingenfelter  (Pa.). 

105  Atl.,  888;  5  A.  L.  R.,  1495,  and  note. 
Taylor  vs.  School  Trustees,  229  S.  W.,  670. 
Condition  and  covenant  distinguished:      7  A.  L.   R., 

1429. 
See  Notes  123,  124,  207. 

201.  "It  is  well  settled  that  error  of  the  trial 
court  in  submitting  immaterial  issues  to  the  jury  or 
the  findings  of  the  jury  in  answer  to  such  issues  are 
harmless  and  constitute  no  reason  for  a  reversal  of 
the  judgment  reiidered. " 


65  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

Greenameyer  vs.  McFarlane,  220  S.  W.,  613. 

202.  Plaintiff  seeking  specific  performance  must 
have  acted  in  good  faith  in  all  matters,  and  not  have 
delayed  unreasonably  to  show  interest  in  purchase, 
etc.,  etc.,  and  contract  must  be  equitable. 

Greenameyer  vs.  McFarlane,  220  S.  W.,  613. 

See  Bergstedt  vs.  Bender,  222  S.  W.,  547,  for  rule 

where  contract  once  fair  has  become  harsh. 
See  Note  193. 

203.  Presumption  of  deed. 

See  Stocksbury  vs.  Swan,  85  Texas,  563;  22  S.  W. 
963,  cited  in  Chapman  vs.  Dickerson,  223  S.  W., 
318. 

204.  Lessee's  right  to  remove  property. 

Sanders  vs.  Davis,  192  Pac.  694. 

Rennie  vs.  Red  Star  Oil  Co..  190  Pac,  391. 

See  Note  288. 

205.  Cancellation  on  ground  of  insanity. 

Wisdom  vs.  Peek,  220  S.  W..  210. 
Turner  vs.  Robertson.  224  S.  W.,  252. 

206.  Where  impossible  to  return  consideration 
paid  in  suit  to  rescind. 

Wisdom  vs.  Peek,  220  S.  W.,  210. 

207.  Mineral  rights  as  affected  by  language  in 
conveyance  specifying  purpose  for  which  the 
property  is  to  be  used. 


66  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

Note,  A.  L.  R.,  5,  p.  1498. 
See  Note  200. 

208.  Respective  rights  of  adjoining  owners  as  to 
pumping  oil. 

Higgins  Oil  &  Fuel  Co.  vs.  Guaranty  Oil  Co.,   5  A 

L.  R.,  411,  and  note  p.  421. 
See  R.  S.,  Art.  4643A. 

209.  Ownership  of  fugitive  oil. 

Texas  Co.  vs.  Dougherty,  107  Texas,  226;  176  S.  W., 

717;  L.  R.  A.,  1917  F,  989. 
Higgins  Oil  &  Fuel  Co.  vs.  Guaranty  Oil  Co.,  5  A.  L 

R.,  p.  419. 
T.  P.  C.  &  O.  Co.  vs.  Howard,  212  S.  W.,  735. 
Walls  vs.    Midland  Carbon  Co.,  254  U.  S.,  300., 

210.  Filling  in  blanks  of  deed  of  married  woman 
after  acknowledgment. 

Finkelstein  vs.  Roberts,  220  S.  W.,  405. 
See  Fleming  vs.  Head,  228  S.  W.,  302. 
See  Notes  88,  152. 

211.  A  deed  on  a  condition  subsequent  is  absolute 
Avhen  the  grantor  is  satisfied  with  the  fulfillment  of 
the  condition. 

Tickner  vs.  Luse,  220  S.  W.,  578. 

See  McCallister  vs.  Texas  Co.,  223  S.  W.,  p.  863. 

212.  "The  law  applies  the  rule  of  strict  construc- 
tion, when  a  forfeiture  is  claimed  for  the  breach  of 
a  condition  subsequent." 

Tickner  vs.  Luse,  220  S.  W.,  578,  580. 


67  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

See  Cochrum  vs.  Christy,  223  S.  W.,  308. 
McCallister  vs.  Texas  Co.,  223  S.  W.,  p.  863. 
Hickernell  vs.  Gregory,  224  S.  W.,  691. 
See  Note  430. 

213.  A  forfeiture,  based  on  non-performance  of 
a  condition  subsequent,  is  waived  if  not  claimed,  the 
fee  passing  in  a  deed  on  such  condition, 

Tickner  vs.  Luse,  220  S.  W.,  578,  580. 

See  Epperson  vs.  Helbron,  225  S.  W.,  345. 

See  Benavides  vs.  Hunt,  79  Texas,  p.  391;  15  S.  W., 

p.  399. 
See  Note  83. 

214.  No  one  can  take  advantage  of  breach  of  a 
condition  subsequent  or  claim  a  forfeiture  but  the 
grantor  and  his  heirs. 

Tickner  vs.  Luse,  220  S.  W.,  578,  580. 
Moore  vs.  Decker,  176  S.  W.,  816. 

215.  Time  from  which  lis  pendens  notice  is  effec- 
tive.   . 

Aurelius  vs.  Stewart,  219  S.  W.,  863. 

216.  Possession  as  constituting  notice,  as  regards 
(a)  notice  to  grantor,  (b)  lis  pendens,  (c)  fencing 
only,  (d)  what  possession  is  notice  of,  (e)  what  kind 
of  possession  constitutes  notice. 

Aurelius  vs.  Stewart,  219  S.  W.,  863. 
Heck  vs.  Morgan,  106  S.  E.,  413. 
Besho  vs.  General  Pet.  Corp.,  199  Pac,  22. 
Sao  Note  72. 


68  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

217.  A  contract  to  commence  "drilling"  in  a 
certain  radius  within  a  certain  time  is  complied  with 
by  bringing  material,  etc.,  on  ground  and  contracting 
for  well,  within  the  time. 

Fast  vs.  Whitney,  187  Pac,  192. 
Terry  vs.  Texas  Co.,  228  S.  W.,  1019. 
See  Note  220. 

218.  Where  term  of  lease  expires  while  good  faith 
drilling  is  being  done,  under  lease  extending  term 
while  production  is  had  or  development  in  progress, 
the  lease  is  continued  by  the  driling. 

Prowant  vs.  Sealy,  187  Pac,  235. 

See,  especially,  McCallister  vs.  Texas  Co.,  223  S.  W., 

859. 
Eastern  Oil  Co.  vs.  Coulehan,  64  S.  E.,  836. 
Texas  Co.  vs.  Curry,  229  S.  W.,  643. 
Anderson  vs.  Schaffner,  110  S.  E.,  566. 
See  Note  285. 

219.  Payment  of  rentals  is  sufficient  acceptance 
of  a  lease  by  a  corporation. 

Patton  vs.  T.  P.  C.  &  O.  Co.,  225  S.  W.,  857. 

220.  "Operations  for  the  drilling  of  a  well  for 
oil,"  etc.,  defined. 

McCallister  vs.  Texas  Co.,  223  S.  W.,  859. 

Fast  vs.   Whitney,    187    Pac,   192,   and   cases  cited. 

Forney  vs.  Ward,  62  S.  W.,  108. 

Cox  vs.  Miller,  227  S.  W.,  652. 

Terry  vs.  Texas  Co.,  228  S.  W.,  .1019. 

See  Pratt  vs.  Hays,  226  S.  W.,  362. 

See  Notes  4,  217. 

221.  Rules  for  eonstmetion  of  oil  leases  stated. 


69  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

T.  P.  C.  &  O.  Co.  vs.  Harris,  230  S.  W.,  237. 
McCallister  vs.  Texas  Co.,  223  S.  W.,  859. 
Prowant  vs.  Sealy,  187  Pac,  235. 
Garfield  Oil  Co.  vs.  Champlin,  189  Pac,  514. 
Siler  vs.  White  Star  Coal  Co.,  226  S.  W.,  102. 
Carder  vs.  Blackwell  Oil  &  Gas  Co.,  201  Pac,  25  2. 

222.  Purchaser  of  part  of  land  covered  by  lease 
not  entitled  to  forfeiture,  Avhere  lease  is  not  subject 
to  forfeiture  as  to  whole  tract. 

McCallister  vs.  Texas  Co.,  223  S.  W.,  859. 
See  Wescott  vs.  Bailey,  198  Pac,  189. 
See  Note  2  68. 

223.  Forged  or  defective  deed  as  affecting  limi- 
tation. 

Todd  vs.  Hand,  2nd  C.  C.  A.,  6-19-20. 
Davis  vs.  Howe,  213  S.  W.,  609.      (Void  deed  pro- 
cured by  fraud.) 

224.  Necessary  showing  in  suit  to  compel  specific 
performance  of  oral  contract  to  convej-. 

Fabra  vs.  Fabra,  221  S.  W.,  1008. 
Simpson  vs.  Green,  231  S.  W.,  375. 

225.  "If  reformation  of  a  contract  is  had  it  must 
flow  out  of  and  accord  with  the  agreement  and  obli- 
gation of  the  parties,  and  be  adapted  to  the  condition 
of  facts  to  which  it  is  to  be  applied,  a  means  of 
exercising  the  equity  powers  of  the  court,  to  compel 
the  performance  of  the  agreement  fairly  and  legally 
entered  into." 

Mackenzie  vs.  Pugh,  221  S.  W.,  p.  1014. 


70  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

Eldora  Oil  Co.  vs.  Thompson,  230  S.  W.,  738. 
Harkey  vs.  Graves,  230  S.  W.,  750. 
De    Flores    vs.    Smith,    236    S.    W.,    505     (married 
woman's  contract). 

226.  Payment  of  rental  by  dishonored  cheek  is 
not  payment  though  lease  authorizes  payment  by 
cheek. 

Broyles  vs.  Oilman,  222  S.  W.,  685. 

227.  Where  lease  assigned  in  part,  and  one 
assignee  pays  his  part  of  rental  for  longer  term 
than  required,  and  another  fails  to  pay  at  all,  lessor 
can  not  forfeit  if  amount  so  paid  equals  amount  due 
for  term  for  which  payment  is  required. 

Broyles  vs.  Oilman,  222  S.  W.,  685. 

(This  decision  is  without  regard  to  whether  the  part 
assigned  is  an  undivided  interest  or  a  specific 
number  of  acres,  or  to  whether  the  two  assignees 
claim  under  the  same  assignment.) 

See  Parris  vs.  Butler  County  Oil  Co.,  195  Pac,  879. 

See  Note  395. 

228.  The  mere  fact  that  assignment  of  a  lease 
is  authorized  implies  the  right  to  pay  rentals  on  the 
part  assigned  only. 

Hitson  vs.  Oilman,  220  S.  W.,  140. 
Broyles  vs.  Oilman,  222  S.  W.,  685. 
See  Note  96. 

A  lease  extending  to  "assigns"  impliedly  au- 
thorizes assignment, 

N.  W.  Ohio  Nat.  Oas  Co.  vs.  UUery,  67  N.  E.,  494. 
See  Lawrence  vs.  Mahony,  225  S.  W.,  340, 


71  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

229.  Clause  authorizing  pro  rata  payment  of  ren- 
tals by  assignee  will  be  enforced  where  the  assigned 
interests  are  in  different  holders,  but  where  the  as- 
signed interests  constitute  the  whole  leasehold  and 
converge  in  one  holder  he  can  not  pay  rentals  on, 
and  thereby  hold,  one  assigned  interest. 

Young  vs.  Jones,  222  S.  W.,  691. 
See  Note  268. 

230.  The  right  to  assign  given  in  a  lease  nega- 
tives the  idea  that  the  lessee  is  bound  to  develop. 

Bost  vs.  Diggers  Bros.,  222  S.  W.,  1112. 
See  Note  33  c. 

231.  A  transferee  of  the  lessor  has  no  greater 
rights  to  claim  a  forfeiture  than  the  lessor  had. 

McCallister  vs.  Texas  Co.,  223  S.  W.,  859,  863. 
See  Blakely  vs.  Wilson,  228  S.  W.,  22. 
Waiver  by  lessor  as  affecting  right  of  transferee  to 
enforce:      Olsen  vs.  Erwin,  229  S.  W.,  878. 

232.  For  distinction  between  suit  to  forfeit  and 
suit  to  cancel  for  breach  with  special  reference  to 
aid  e(iuity  will  give,  see 

McCallister  vs.  Texas  Co.,  223  S.  W.,  p.  863-864. 
Ford  vs.  Cochran,  223  S.  W.,  1041. 
See  Note  269. 

233.  Cancellation  seems  proper  action  where 
lessee  fails  to  comply  within  the  time  provided. 

McCallister  vs.  Texas  Co.,  223  S.  W.,  864. 


72         .      Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

234.  A  leese  automatically  forfeits  upon  failure 
to  either  drill  or  pay  rental. 

Ford  vs.  Cochran,  223  S.  W.,  1043. 
See  Notes  8,  43,  44,  45,  75,  128,  157. 

235.  Reservation  of  title  to  minerals  vs.  reserva- 
tion of  right  to  explore,  as  affecting  rights  of  sub- 
sequent purchasers. 

• 
States  Oil  Corp.  vs.  Ward,  223  S.  W.,  250,  indicating 

reservation  of  right    to  explore  may  become  stale. 
And  see  this  case  in  the  Supreme  Court,  236  S.  W., 

446. 
And  on  this  point  see  Chapman  vs.  Dearman,  229  S. 

W.,  1112. 
And  see  also  Note  348. 
See  Notes  10,  79,  116,  246,  348. 

236.  Settlement  of  controversies  is  favored  at 
law. 

Von  Hatzfeld  vs.  Haubert,  224  S.  W.,  220. 

237.  Duress  as   a   ground   for   cancellation,   dis 
cussed. 

Turner  vs.  Robertson,   224  S.  W.,  252. 

238.  Payment  of  rental  to  one  of  several  co-ten- 
ants good  in  absence  of  notice  to  pay  otherwise. 

Thornton,  p.  1213. 

Swint  vs.  Oil  Co.,  184  Pac,  202;    63  Am.  St.,   791; 

38  Atl.,  1020. 
Jenkins  vs.  Williams.  229  S.  W.,  94. 
See  Note  251. 


73  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Di;cisiONS. 

239.  If  a  grantor  conveys  the  same  property 
twice,  the  grantees  of  the  first  grantee  take  title  as 
against  the  second  grantee,  though  the  second  deed 
was  recorded  first,  good  faith  being  assumed. 

White  vs.  McGregor,  92  Texas,  556;    50  S.  W.,  564, 

(Upon  reconsideration  of  this  case,  I  doubt  if  the 
opinion  applies  to  a  case  in  which  the  first  grantee 
does  not  place  his  deed  of  record  prior  to  the 
time  when  the  deed  of  the  second  grantee  goes 
to  record.) 

See  Frank  vs.  Hiedenheimer,  84  Texas,  p.  642;  19 
S.  W.,  855. 

Delay  vs.  Truitt,  182  S.  W.,  732. 

240.  A  holder  for  value,  though  with  knowledge, 
succeeds  to  the  rights  of  his  grantor  without  knowl- 
edge. 

Huling  vs.  Moore,  194  S.  W.,  188,  192. 
White  vs.  McGregor,  92  Texas,  556,  559;   50  S.  W., 
564. 

241.  Innocent  purchaser  from  husband  where  title 
originally  vested  in  him.  alone,  takes  title,  though 
heirs  of  deceased  wife  have  equitable  title. 

Edwards   vs.    Brown,    68    Texas,    p.    329;    4    S.    W., 

380;   5  S.  W.,  87. 
Patty  vs.  Middleton,  82  Texas,  586. 
Johnson  vs.  Masterson,  217  S.  W.,  410. 
Burnham  vs.  Hardy  Oil  Co.,  195  S.  W.,  1140. 

242.  As  to  whether  record  of  an  instruinent  refer- 
ring to  another  instrument  is  notice  of  such  other 
instrument,  see 

Frank  vs.  Hiedenheimer,  84  Texas,  p.  642;  19  S.  W., 
8  55,  and  cases  cited. 


74  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions, 

243.  "What  record  is  notice  of. 

Wiseman  vs.  Waters,  17  4  S.  W.,  815,  816. 
Wallace  vs.  Hoyt,  225  S.  W.,  425. (Reservation.) 

244.  First  bona  fide  vendee  to  put  deed  on  record 
gets  title  so  that  his  vendee  is  protected. 

Delay  vs.  Truitt,  182  S.  W.,  732. 
See  Note  239. 

245.  AVhere  possession  is  taken  with  consent  of 
owner,  temporary  injunction  will  not  issiie  to  trans- 
fer possession. 

Collins  vs.  Humble  Oil  &  Ref.  Co.,  223  3.  W.,  696. 
See  Note   39. 

246.  Under  a  ' '  reservation  "  in  a  deed  the  interest 
reserved  goes  to  grantor's  grantees  upon  his  death; 
under  an  "exception"  the  interest  excepted  goes 
to  his  heirs  upon  his  death, 

Arden  vs.  Boone,  187  S.  W.,  p.  997, 
Donnell  vs.  Otts,  230  S.  W.,  864. 
Arnett  vs.  Elkhorn  Coal  Corp.,  231  S.  W.,  219. 
See  Notes  10,  79,  116,  2»5. 

247.  Elfect  of  "more  or  less"  on  deficit  in  quan- 
tity. 

Nicholson  vs.  C.  C.  Slaughter  Co.,  217  S.  W.,  716. 

248.  As  to  what  is  sufficient  description  in  con- 
tract to  convey  land,  or  in  deed: 

Morrison  vs.  Dailey,  6  S.  W.,  42  6   (Sup.). 


75  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

Frazier  vs.  Lambert,  115  S.  W.,  1174. 

Watson  vs.  Baker,  71  Texas,  747;   9  S.  W.,  868. 

Westmoreland  vs.  Carson,  76  S.  W.,  62  2;   13  S.  W., 

559. 
Dyer  vs.  Winston,  77  S.  W.,  227. 
Elliott  on  Contracts,  Sec.  2291. 

Hopkins  vs.  Walters,   224   S.  W.,   516,  stating  rule. 
Langham  vs.  Gray,  227  S.  W.,  741,  744. 
Mid-Texas  Pet.  Co.  vs.  Colcord,  235  S.  W.,  710. 
Long  vs.  Martin,  234  S.  W.,  91,  holding  (a)  extrinsic 

evidence  will  be  heard,  and  (b)  certain  number  of 

acres  will  be  taken  to  conform  to  known  lines  of 

survey. 

249.     As  to  w-hether  one  may  be  an  innocent  pur- 
chaser of  an  oil  and  gas  lease : 

National  Oil  &  Pipe  Line  Co.  vs.  Teel,  95  Texas,  586; 

68  S.  W.,  979;   67  S.  W.,  545. 
Young  vs.  Jones,  222  S.  W.,  691. 
Bailey  vs.  Williams,  223  S.  W..  311. 
Hennessy  vs.  Blair,  173  S.  W.,  871. 
Spotts  vs.  Whittaker,  157  S.  W.,  422-424. 
Hickernell  vs.  Gregory,   224  S.  W.,   691. 
Speer  on  Marital  Rights,  Sec.  339,  Note  7. 
Hitson  vs.  Gilman,  220  S.  W.,  140. 
McKay  vs.  Lucas,  220  S.  W.,  172,  175. 
Isom  vs.  Rex  Crude  Oil  Co.,  147  Cal.,  659;   82  Pac, 

317. 
Magnolia  Pet.  Co.  vs.  Saylor,  180  Pac,  861. 
Gilmore  vs.  O'Neil,  107  Texas,  18;   173  S.  W.,  203. 
See  "Innocent  Purchaser  of  Oil  and  Gas  Lease"  by 

Hardwicke   (1921). 
Sturm  vs.  Wiess,  273  Fed.,  457. 
Varnes  vs.  Dean,  228  S.  W.,  1017. 
Aurelius  vs.  Stewart,  219  S.  W.,  863. 
Burt  vs.  Deorsam,  227  S.  W.,  354. 
T.  P.  C.  &  O.  Co.  vs.  Fox,  228  S.  W.,  1021. 
Davis  vs.  Texas  Co.,  232  S.  W.,  p.  555. 


76  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

Marnett  Oil   &   Gas  Co.   vs.   Munsey,   232   S.   \V.,  p. 

870-1. 
Luckel  vs.  Phillips  Pet.  Co.,  235  S.  W.,  605,    (writ 

granted). 
See  Note  252. 

250.  As  to  whether  an  oil  lease  which  does  not 
bind  the  lessee  to  explore  for  oil  is  voidable  as  being 
unilateral. 

Qorslcana  Pet.  Co.  vs.  Owens,  222  S.  W.,  154  (Sup.). 

McCray  vs.  Miller,  184  Pac,  781. 

Aycock  vs.  Reliance  Oil  Co.,  210  S.  W.,  848. 

Griffin  vs.  Bell,  202  S.  W.,  1034. 

Pierce  Oil  Ass'n  vs.  Woodrum,  188  S.  W.,  245. 

See  Wilder  vs.   Norman,    85   So.,   59,   illustrating  a 

unilateral  lease. 
Lawrence  vs.  Mahoney,  225  S.  W.,  340. 
Patton  vs.  T.  P.  C.  &  O.  Co.,  225  S.  W.,  857. 
Marnett  Oil  &  Gas  Co.  vs.  Munsey,  232  S.  W.,  867. 

251.  OAvners  of  the  reversion  are  entitled  to  the 
rents. 

Leonard  vs.  Caruthers,  236  S.  W.,  191. 

Lester  vs.  Zink,   154  S.  W.,  1161. 

Porter  vs.  Sweeney,  61  Texas,  276. 

Hearne  vs.  Lewis,  78  Texas,  276;   14  S.  W.,  572. 

Groos  vs.  Chittim,  100  S.  W.,  1006. 

Maxwell  vs.  Urban,  55  S.  W.,  1124. 

Schultz  vs.  Spreain,  1  App.  C.  C,  917;  2  Posey,  206. 

Burden  vs.  Thayer,  44  Mass.,  76;    37  Am.   Dec,  p. 

119. 
Thornton,  p.  1213. 
See  Note  238. 

252.  As  to  the  character  or  right  conferred  by 
an  oil  and  gas  lease: 


77  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

That  an  equitable  title  only  is  conferred: 

Xat'l  Oil  &  Pipe  Line  Co.  vs.  Teel,  95  Texas,  5  86; 
68  S.  W.,   979. 

Hitson  vs.  Gilman,  220  S.  W.,  140. 

Young  vs.  Jones,  222  S.  W.,  691. 

Bailey  vs.  Williams,  223  S.  W.,  311. 

Varnes  vs.  Dean,  228  S.  W.,  1017. 

Millar  vs.  Mauney,  234  S.  W.,  498. 

Luman  vs.  Davis,  196  Pac,  1078,  showing  signifi- 
cance of  "found"  and  surrender  clause. 

Leonard  vs.  Caruthers,  236  S.  W.,  189. 

That  a  legal  title  is  conferred : 

Benavides  vs.  Hunt,  79  Texas,   383;    15  S.  W.,   396 

(limitation). 
Lyon  vs.  Union  Gas  &  Oil  Co.,  274  Fed.,  957. 
Texas  Co.   vs.   Daugherty,    107    Texas,    226;    176   S. 

W.,  717;   L.  R.  A.,  1917  F.,  989. 
Townsend   vs.    Day,    224    S.    W.,    283    (must    be    in 

writing). 
Daughetee   vs.    Oil    Co.,    105    N.    E.,    308    (freehold 

interest). 
Blue  vs.  Conner,  219   S.  W.,  533. 
Priddy  vs.  Green,  220  S.  W.,  243. 
Finkelstein  vs.  Roberts,  220  S.  W.,  p.  405. 
Hickernell  vs.  Gregory,  224  S.  W.,  691. 
Stemmons  vs.  Matthai,  227  S.  W.,  364  (venue). 
Calame  vs.  Paisley,  130  N.  E.,  310. 
Guffey  vs.   Smith,   237   U.   S.,   120;    59   L.   Ed.,    856; 

35  Sup.  Ct.,  532  (freehold  interest). 
Bates  vs.  Georgia  Fertilizer  Co.,  229  S.  W.,  153. 
Gilmore  vs.  O'Neil,  107  Texas,  18;   173  S.  W.,  203. 
Smith    vs.    Womack,    231    S.    W.,    840.      (See    for 

bearing  on  right  to  "sublease"  without  consent  of 

landlord.) 

Generally: 


78  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

Richardson  vs.  Levi,   67   Texas,   361;    3   S.  W.,   444. 
And  see,  to  same  effect,  Marnett  Oil  &  Gas  Co.  vs. 

Munsey,  232  S.  W.,  p.  870-871. 
Harvey  Coal  &  Coke  Co.  vs.  Dillon,  53  S.  E.,  928; 

6  L.  R.  A.   (N.  S.),  628. 
Hedley  vs.   Hoopengarner,   55   S.   E.,   744. 
Roach  vs.  Junction   Oil   &   Gas  Co.,   179   Pac,   934. 
Jackson  vs.  Pure  Oil  Co.,  217  S.  W.,  959. 
Emery  vs.  League,  72  S.  W.,  603. 
O'Neil  vs.  Sun  Co.,  123  S.  W.,  172. 
Fisher  vs.  Crescent  Oil  Co.,  178  S.  W.,  908. 
Pierce  Oil  Ass'n  vs.  Woodrum,  188  S.  W.,  p.  248. 
C.   C.   Slaughter  Cattle  Co.   vs.   Potter  County,   235 

S.  W.,  295,  302. 
Thomason  vs.  Ham,  210  S.  W.,  561. 
McEntire  vs.  Thomason,  210  S.  W.,  563. 
Rich  vs.  Doneghey,  177  Pac,  p.  89. 
Kolachny  vs.  Galbreath,  38  L.  R.  A.   (N.  S.),  p.  458. 
Brunson  vs.  Carter  Oil  Co.,  259  Fed.,  656. 
Lowther  Oil  Co.  vs.  Miller-Sibley  Oil  Co.,  44  S.  E., 

433;   97  Am.  St.,  1027. 
State  vs.  Welch,  184  Pac,  786. 
Wilson  vs.  Youst,  28  S.  E.,  781;  39  L.  R.  A.,  292. 
Lawson  vs.  Kirchner,  40  S.  E.,  344. 
Davis  vs.  Texas  Co.,  232  S.  W.,  549,    as  bearing  on 

abandonment. 
Marnett  Oil  &  Gas  Co.  vs.  Munsey,  232  S.  W.,  867, 

as  bearing  on  abandonment. 
See  "Innocent  Purchaser  of  Oil  and  Gas  Lease,"  by 

Hardwicke  (1921). 
Hynson  vs.  Gulf  Prod.  Co.,  232  S.  W.,  873. 
Strickler  vs.  Stanford,  197  Pac,  866. 
Notes: 

42  L.  R.  A.    (N.  S.),  472. 

11  L.  R.  A.  (N.  S.),  99. 

L.  R.  A.,  1918  B,  1071-1073. 
See  Notes  119,  249. 

253.     As  to  when  a  cause  of  action  to  cancel  an 


79  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

oil  and  gas  lease  on  the  ground  that  it  was  pro- 
cured by  fraud  is  barred  by  limitation. 

C.  T.   &  M.  C.  Ry.  Co.  vs.   Titterington,   84   Texas, 

218;   19  S.  W.,  472;   31  Am.  St.,  39. 
Cooper  vs.  Lee,   75  Texas,   114;    12  S.  W.,   483;    21 

S.  W.,  998. 
Shirley  vs.  Ry.  Co.,  78  Texas,  131,  147. 
T.  &  P.  Ry.  Co.  vs.  Jowers,  110  S.  W.,  94  6. 
Cook  vs.  Harbin,  174  S.  W.,  633. 
Evans  vs.  Goggan,  23  S.  W.,  854. 
•Craig  vs.  Harless,  76  S.  W.,  594. 
V         Harry  vs.  Hamilton,  154  S.  W.,  637. 
Hamilton  vs.  Green,   166   S.  W.,  97. 
Dean  vs.  Dean,  214  S.  W.,  p.  509. 
Simkins  on  Equity  (1911),  p.  723. 
Michie's  Digest,  Vol.  15,  p.  236,  et  seq. 
R.  S.,  Art.  5699. 

McEntire  vs.  Thomason.  210  S.  W.,  563. 
Thomason  vs.  McEntire,  233  S.  W.,  616. 
The  rule  seems  to  be  the  same  when  the  action  is 

based  on  mistake. 
Waters  vs.  East,   56  S.  W.,  939. 
See  Oldham  vs.  Med^aris,  90  Texas,  506;   39  S.  W., 

919. 
See  Note  333. 

254,     Rights   of   community   survivor  in   case   of 
insanity  or  death  of  one  spouse. 

Const.,  Art.  16,  Sec.  50. 

R.  S.,  Title  52,  Chap.  29. 

R.  S.,  Art.  1115. 

R.  S.,  Art.  4621  as  amended  by  Act,  April  4,  1917. 

Pierce  vs.  Gibson,  184  S.  W.,  502   (Sup.). 

Priddy  vs.  Tabor,  189  S.  W.,  Ill   (writ  granted). 

Speer  on  Martial  Rights,  See.  201,  also  p.   1013. 

Green  vs.  Windham,  230  S.  W.,  726. 

Lawson  vs.  Armstrong,  227  S.  W.,  687. 

Stone  vs.  Light,  228  S.  W.,  1108. 

Note  34  L.  R.  A.,  223. 


80  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

255.  After — acquired  title. 

T.  P.  C.  &  O.  Co.  vs.  Fox,  228  S.  W.,  1021   (holding 

rule  applies  to  oil  lease). 
Baldwin  vs.  Root,  90  Texas,  550;  40  S.  W.,  3. 
Mayes  vs.  Lewis,  4  Texas,  38. 
Breen  vs.  Morehead,   126  S.  W.,  650. 
Newton  vs.  Easterwood,  154  S.  W.,  646. 
Gould  vs.  West,  32  Texas,  338. 
Tennison  vs.  Palmer,  142  S.  W.,  948. 
Wadkins  vs.  Watson,  86  Texas,  194;  24  S.  W.,  385, 

(married  women;  see  22  L.  R.  A.,  779). 
New  Domain   Oil  &  Gas  Co.  vs.   McKinney,   221   S. 

W.,  245,  holding  lease  implies  warranty  of  quiet 

enjoyment. 
As  related  to  color  of  title,  see  6  A.  L.  R.,  1430. 
Smith  vs.  Bateman,  230  S.  W.,  831. 
Green  vs.  West  Texas  Coal  Mining  &  Dev.  Co.,  225 

S.  W.,   548. 
It  seems  that  the  general  rules  do  not  apply   to  a 

conveyance  after  which  title  vests  in  the  grantor 

under  a  reversionary  right  reserved  in  a  former 

conveyance  of  his. 
Diamond  vs.  Rotan,  124  S.  W.,  196. 
.  Perry  vs.  Smith,  198  S.  W.,  1013. 

256.  Quit-claim  deed  defined  and  distinguished: 

Cook  vs.  Smith,  107  Texas,   119;    174  S.  W.,   1094; 

3  A.  L.  R.,  940. 
Green  vs.  West  Texas  Coal  Mining  &  Dev.  Co.,  225 

S.  W.,  548. 

257.  The  right  to  file  a  trial  amendment  is  not 
dependent  on  the  contingency  that  exceptions  to  the 
original  plea  have  been  sustained. 

S.  W.  Portland  Cement  Co.  vs.  Bustillos,  216  S.  W., 
268. 


81  Texas  Oil  axu  Gas  Decisions.. 

Goodman  vs.  Republic  Inv.  Co.,  215  S.  W.,  p.  470. 
Kenedy  Pasture  Co.  vs.  State,  19  6  S.  W.,  p.  296. 

258.  A  conveyance  of  an  acreage  interest  in  a 
large  tract  is  good,  and  conveys  an  undivided  inter- 
est in  the  whole  tract  to  the  extent  of  the  acreage 
named. 

Holman  vs.  Houston  Oil  Co.,   152  S.  W.,   890;    174 

S.  W.,  891. 
Linnartz  vs.  McCulloch,  27  S.  W.,  279. 
Waterhouse  vs.  Gallup,  178  S.  W.,  773. 
Gray  vs.  Producers  Oil  Co.,  227  S.  W.,  240. 
Langham  vs.  Gray,  227  S.  W.,  741,  744 
See  Note  70. 

259.  Laborers'  and  material  men's  liens  on  prop- 
erty of  lessors  and  lessees. 

Chap.  17,  Acts  35th  Leg.   (1917),  p.  28,  R.  S.,  Arts. 

5639a,  et  seq. 
R.  S.,  Arts.  5621,  5640,  5644. 
Williams  vs.  Magouirk,  235  S.  W.,  640,  as  to  what 

lien  may  cover. 
Banner  Oil  &  Gas  Co.  vs.  Gordon,  235  S.  W.,  945. 
Olson  vs.  Busy  Bee  Mining  &  Dev.  Co.,  202  Pac,  246. 
Lucky  Boy  Min.  &  Mill  Co.  vs.  Moore,  203  Pac,  556 

(parties). 
Berry  vs.  McAdams,  93  Texas,  43;  55  S.  W.,  1112. 
Harlan  vs.  Texas  Fuel  &  Sup.  Co.,  160  S.  \V.,  114  5, 
F.  &  M.  Nat'l  Bank  vs.  Taylor,  91  Texas,  78;    40  S. 

W.,  966  and  876. 
Wm.  Cameron  &  Co.  vs.  Truehart,  165  S.  W.,  58 
Partin  vs.  Wallace,  121  S.  W.,  515. 
Waples-Painter  Co.  vs.  Ross,  141  S.  W.,  1027. 
Beilharz  vs.  Illingsworth,   132   S.   W.,   109. 
Strang  vs.  Pray,  89  Texas,  525;   35  S.  W.,  105  4. 
Hicks  vs.  Faust,  212  S.  W.,  608. 


82  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

Delauney  vs.  Butler,  55  S.  W.,  752. 

Texas  Glass  &   Paint  Co.   vs.   Crowdus,   108   Texas, 

346;   193  S.  W.,  1072. 
FuUenwider  vs.  Longmoor,  73  Texas,  480;  11  S.  W., 

500. 
Johnson  vs.  Griffiths,  135  S.  W.,  686. 
Meadows  vs.  Bolin  Oil  Co.,  194  Pac.,  916,  construing 

Kansas    statute    giving    liens    on    mineral    rights. 
Bartels  vs.  McCullough,  201  Pac,  733. 
Dix  vs.  Willfred  Coal  Co.,   132   N.   E.,  595    (where 

purchases  made  under  separate  contracts). 

260.  Recoverability  of  rentals  under  an  "or" 
lease. 

Turner  vs.  Lick  Creek  Oil  &  Gas  Co.,  234  S.  W.,  191. 

Brown  vs.  Wilson,  L.  R.  A.,  1917  B,  1184. 

(See  especially  dissenting  opinion.) 

Smith  vs.  Guffey,  202  Fed.,  p.   109. 

Clemenger  vs.  Flesher,  185  S.  W.,  304. 

Rich  vs.  Doneghey,  177  Pac,  p.  90. 

Hancock  vs.  Diamond  Plate  Glass  Co.,  70  N.  E.,  p. 

151. 
Pierce  Fordyce  Oil  Ass'n  vs.  Woodrum,   188  S.  W., 

p.  25. 
Weiss  vs.  Claborn,   219   S.  W.,  884. 
Note  to  Howerton  vs.  Gas  Co.,  34  L.  R.  A.   (N.  S.), 

P.  34. 
Note  to  Deming  Investment  Co.  vs.  Lanham,  44  L. 

R.  A.   (N.  S.),  50. 
Healdton  O.  &.  G.  Co.  vs.  Smith,  195  Pac,  756. 
Eastern  Oil  Co.  vs.   Smith,   195   Pac,   775,  limiting 

rule  to  "or"  lease. 
See  Notes  7,  48,  68,  69. 

261.  Delivery  of  deed  is  essential  to  constitute  a 
conveyance,  but  not  where  the  grantor  is  the  proper 
custodian  of  the  grantee's  title  papers. 


83  Texas  Oil  axd  Gas  Decisions. 

Brown  vs.  Brown,  61  Texas,  56. 
Richardson  vs.  Hutchins,  68  Texas,  81;  3  S.  W.,  2  76. 
McCartney  vs.  McCartney,  93  Texas,  359;   55  S.  W., 
310. 
V Newman  vs.  Newman,  86  S.  W.,  635. 
/•   Hillebrant  vs.  Brewer,  6  Texas,  49. 
Higgins  vs.  Johnson,  20  Texas,  393. 
""^^  Crawford's  Appeal,  61  Pa.  St.,  52. 
V    Deming  vs.  Williams,  26  Conn.,  226. 
Note  44  L.  R.  A.  (N.  S.),  532. 
Earl  vs.  Mundy,  227  S.  W.,  970. 

Hapgood  vs.   City  Nat.  Bank,   230   S.  W.,   775    (ap- 
plying delivery  rule  to  lease).  ^ 

262.  "Where  operations  are  prevented  by  injunc- 
tion or  eviction  may  lessor  have  opportunity  for 
development  beyond  the  term  of  the  lease? 

Keechi  Oil  «S;  Gas  Co.  vs.  Smith,  198  Pac,  588   (dis- 
senting opinion). 
Stahl  vs.  Van  Vleck,  41  N.  E.,  35,  39. 
Halla  vs.  Rogers,  176  Fed.,  709;  34  L.  R.  A.  (N.  S.). 

120. 
Peshtigo  Lumber  Co.  vs.  Ellis,  100  N.  W.,  834. 
Pyle  vs.  Henderson,  46  S.  E.,  791;   63  S.  E.  762. 
See  especially  Keen  vs.  Logan,  84  So.,  501,  and  cases 

cited. 
See  Sunshine  Oil  Corp.  vs.  Randals,   226   S.  W.,  p. 

1093,  holding  diligence  required  to  time  of  filing 

of  amended  petition. 
York  vs.  Warren  Oil  &  Gas  Co.,  229  S.  W^,  114. 
Standard  Oil  Co.  vs.  Webb,  88  So.,  808,   (purchaser 

under  lessor.) 
Brewster  vs.  Zinc  Co.,  140  Fed.,  p.  815. 
Leonard  vs.  Busch  Everett  Co.,  7  2  So.,  749. 
Consumers  Gas  Trust  Co.  vs.  Ink,   71  N.  E.,  477-9. 
Eastern  Oil  Co.  vs.  Coulehan,  64  S.  E.,  836. 
Treasurer  of  BroAvn  County  vs.  Martin,  50  Ohio  St.. 

197;  33  N.  E.,  1112. 


84  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

McCallister  vs.  Texas  Co.,  223  S.  W.,  859. 

See  Millar  vs.  Mauney,  234  S.  W.,  498. 

The  question  is  pretermitted     in     Smith     vs.     First 

Nat.  Bank,   198  Pac,   103. 
See  Gulf  Ref.  Co.  vs.  Hayne,  86  So.,  891. 
Hutchinson  vs.  Atlas  Oil  Co.,  87  So.,  p.  266. 
Myers  vs.  Sherfzer,  108  Pac,  105;   82  Kan.,  275  (on 

necessity  of  paying  rental  pendente  lite). 
See  Notes  193,  202,  301,  364. 

263.     That  a  corporation  may  not  lawfully  enter 
into  a  partnership  agreement,  see 

Ry.  vs.  Kelly,  83  S.  W.,  855. 

White  vs.   Pecos  Land  Co.,   45  S.  W.,  207;    Aff.   93 

Texas,    698. 
Sabine  Tram  Co.  vs.  Bancroft,  40  S.  W.,  837;  Aff.  93 

Texas,  138. 
Murray  Co.  vs.  Exch.  Nat.  Bank,  61  S.  W.,  508. 

As  CO  mining  partnership,  see 

Randall  vs.  Meredith,  13  S.  W.,  567. 

Archer,  p.  625. 

Thornton,  Sec.  355. 

Oil   Lease   &   Royalty  Syndicate  vs.   Beeler,   217   S. 

W.,  1054. 
Meacher  vs.  Reed,  24  Pac,  681. 
See  Note  146. 

For  test  of  partnership,  see 

Fink  vs.  Brown,  215  S.  W.,  846. 

Freeman  vs.  Huttig,  105  Texas,  560;  153  S.  W.,  122 

See  Note  401. 

Measure  of  damages: 

Chapman  vs.  Warden,  110  S.  W.,  533,  534. 


85  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

Nelson  vs.  S.  A.  Traction  Co.,  175  S.  W.,  434. 
Simkins  Contracts  and  Sales,  p.  689. 

264.  Are  all  co-tenants  necessary  parties  in  a 
suit  to  cancel? 

Pyle  V3  Henderson,  46  S.  E.,  791. 

King  vs.  Commissioners  Court,  30  S.  W.,  257. 

Steelsmith  vs.  Fisher  Oil  Co.,  35  S.  E.,  15. 

See,  especially.  Green  vs.  Standard  Oil  Co.,   84  So., 

211    (where  lease  fcrfeits  propria   vigore). 
Silberberg  vs.  Pearson,  75  Texas,  287;  12  S.  W.,  850. 
Mash  vs.  Bloom,   105   N.   W.,   831. 
Nabors  vs.  Producers  Oil  Co.,  74  So.,  5  27;  A.  L.  R., 

1917  D,  1115  (transferees  in  suit  by  lessor). 
Tompkins  vs.  Hooker,  226  S.  W.,  1114  (partition). 

265".  "By"  a  certain  date  includes  that  date  un- 
less the  context  forbids  that  construction. 

J.  C.   Engelman  Land  Co.   vs.   La  Blanco  Agr.   Co., 

220   S.  W.,  653. 
Armstrong  vs.  Palmer,  218  S.  W.,  627. 

266.  Soldiers'  and  Sailors'  Civil  Relief  Act  as 
affecting  forfeiture. 

Hickernell  vs.  Gregory,  224  S.  W.,  691. 

267.  Assignee  of  a  recorded  oil  lease  may  rely 
on  recitation  of  payment  of  original  consideration, 
though  is  was  never  paid. 

Hickernell  vs.  Gregory,  224  S.  W.,  691. 
See  Note  279. 

268.  Power  of  court  to  cancel  as  to  part  of  lease 
undeveloped  after  discovery. 


86  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

Pelham  Pet.  Co.  vs.  North,  188  Pac,  1069. 
Carder  vs.  Blackvvell  Oi!  &  Gas  Co.,  201  Pac,  252. 
See  Notes  171,  222,  229,  410. 

269.  For  distinction  between  forfeiture  and  hold- 
ing a  party  to  the  contract  he  has  made,  see 

Gillespie  vs.  Bobo,  271  Fed.,  641. 

Peerless  Carbon  Black  Co.  vs.  Gillespie,  105  S.  E.,. 

517,      holding      forfeitures      strictly      construed. 

breaches  of  contract  liberally. 
Paraffine   Oil  Co.   vs.   Cruce,    162    Pac,   716;    14   A. 

L.  R.,  952. 
Gassaway  vs.  Teichgraeber,  191  Pac,  282. 
Green  vs.  Standard  Oil  Co.,  84  So.,  211   (all  lessors. 

not  necessary  parties). 
Niles  vs.   Meade,   224   S.  W.,   854. 
McCallister  vs.  Texas  Co.,  223  S.  W.,  859,  863. 
Eastern  Oil  Co.  vs.  Smith,  195  Pac,  p.  779. 
McLaughlin  vs.Brock,    225  S.  W.,  575. 
See  Notes  64,  128,  129,  232,  277,  282. 

270.  "The  lessee  is  entitled    *     *     *    to  do  thb 
things  necessary  to  make  the  operation  successful." 

Rennie  vs.  Red  Star  Oil  Co.,  190  Pac,  391. 
Imperial   Elkhorn   Coal   Co.   vs.    Webb,-   225    S.    W., 

1077. 
Clayborn  vs.   Camilla   Red  Ash   Coal   Co.,    128   Va., 

383;    105  S.  E.,  117;    15  A.  L.  R.,  946. 
Yuba  Inv.  Co.  vs.  Yuba  Consol.  Gold  Fields,  194  Pac, 

19,  applying  rule  to  exception  in  deed. 
See  Notes  399,  436. 

271.  Check  mailed  on  day  rental  due,  reaching- 
bank  next  day,  and  deposited  next  day  is  not  timely. 

Gasaway  vs.  Teichgraeber,  191  Pac,  282. 


87  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

272.  Power  of  Legislature  to  create  a  body  to 
make  rules  governing  operation  of  mines. 

State  vs.  Howat.  191  Pac,  585. 

273.  The  fact  that  a  lease  is  for  20  years,  or 
otherwise  onerous,  does  not  affect  its  validity. 

McKee  vs.  Thornton,   192   Pac,  212. 

Blackwell  Oil  &  Gas  Co.  vs.  Whited,  196  Pac,  688. 

Skinner  vs.  Ajax  Portland  Cement  Co.,  197  Pac,  875 

(99  years). 
Benavides  vs.  Hunt,  79  Texas,  383;   15  S.  W.,  396. 

274.  Past  acceptance  of  overdue  rentals  as  af- 
fecting forfeiture  for  delay  in  payment. 

Denniston  vs.  Kenova  Oil  Co.,  220  S.  W.,  1078. 
Ohio  Fuel  Oil  Co.  vs.  Greenleaf,  99  S.  E.,  274. 

275.  "The  least  favored  of  all  forfeitures  are 
those  founded  upon  mere  delay  in  the  payment  of 
money. ' ' 

Denniston  vs.  Kenova  Oil  Co.,  220  S.  W.,  1078. 
See  Note  269. 

276.  ' '  Well ; "  "  completion  of  well ' '  defined. 

Knight  Bros.  vs.  Standard  Oil  Co.,  84  So.,  653. 
See  Note  136. 

277.  "Prevent  a  forfeiture"  defined;  has  no  ref- 
erence to  status  once  fixed. 

Rowe  vs.  Atlas  Oil  Co  ,  84  So.,  485. 
Jenkins  vs.  Williams,  229  S.  W.,  94. 
See  Note   269. 


88  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

278,     Owner  of    minerals    not    responsible    for 
waste  to  surface  by  another  person. 

Wemple  vs.  Pasadena  Pet.  Co.,  85  So.,  230. 

279.  Purchaser  required  to  ascertain  only  whe- 
ther record  lessee  or  assignee  has  paid  rental;  rule 
does  not  require  investigation  as  to  whether  pay- 
ments have  been  made  by  holder  whose  title  is  not 
of  record. 

Baird  vs.  Atlas  Oil  Co.,  84  So.,  366. 
See  Note  267. 

280.  Amount  of  gas  lessor  may  use  under  clause 
authorizing  use  of  gas  for  domestic  purposes,  and 
when  it  may  not  be  used  by  lijm. 

Pittsburgh  &  W.  Va.  Gas  Co.  vs.  Richardson,  100  S. 

E.,  220;  9  A.  L.  R.,  86. 
See  Pittsburgh  &  West  Va.  Gas  Co.  vs.   Nicholson, 

105   S.   E.,   784. 
Hutchinson  vs.  Atlas  Oil  Co.,  87  So.,  265    (pending 

litigation). 
Bassell  vs.  West  Va.  Cent.  Gas  Co.,  103  S.  E.,  116; 

12  A.  L.  R.,  1398,  and  note. 
Weaver  vs.  Graham,  199  Pac,  924. 
See  Note  12. 

281.  Conveyance  setting  forth  terms  for  organi- 
zation of  company  to  handle  property  conveyed 
strictly  construed,  and  terms  must  be  complied  with, 

Kennedy  vs.  Burns,  101  S.  E.,  156. 

282.  Consideration  ie  necessary  to  support  waiver 
of  breach  of  contract. 


89  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

Niles  vs.  Meade,  224  S.  W.,  854. 
Jenkins  vs.  Williams,  229  S.  W.,  94. 

283.  Where  time  is  essential  vis  major  will  not 
excuse  non-performance. 

Niles  vs.  Meade,  224  S.  W.,  854. 

See  McLaughlin  vs.  Brock,  225  S.  W.,  575. 

See  Note  63. 

284.  Waste  as  related  to  opening  of  new  mine 
and  working  of  old  one. 

Swayne  vs.  Lone  Acre  Oil  Co.,   98   Texas,   597;    86 
S.  W.,  740;   69  L.  R.  A.,  986. 

285.  What  must  be  state  of  production  or  opera- 
tions at  end  of  specified  time  to  extend  term. 

Ohio  Fuel  Oil  Co.  vs.  Greenleaf,  99  S.  E.,  274. 
Anthis  vs.  Sullivan  Oil  &  Gas  Co. ,203  Pac,  187,  and 

cases  cited. 
Caylor  vs.  Bankers  Oil  Co.,  203  Pac,  735    (holding 

rentals  may  not  secure  extension  after  production 

has  ceased). 
Knight  Bros.  vs.  Standard  Oil  Co.,  84  So.,  653. 
See  Notes  218,  405. 

286.  Yis  major  as  affecting  diligence. 

Ohio  Fuel  Oil  Co.  vs.  Greenleaf,  99  S.  E.,  274. 

287.  Estoppel  of  lessor  to   claim    that    time    is 
essential  in  payment  of  rentals. 

Ohio  Fuel  Oil  Co.  vs.  Greenleaf,  99  S.  E.,  274. 

288.  Rights  of  parties  where  the  removal  cf  cas- 
ing is  objected  to. 


90  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

S.  W.  Oil  &  Gas  Co.  vs.  Kimball  Oil  Dev.  Co.,  224 

S.  W.,  1111. 
See  Note  204. 

289.  A  contract  to  give  an  oil  and  gas  lease  on 
Producer's  88  form  is  too  uncertain  to  be  enforce- 
able. 

Maynard  vs.  Gilliam,  225  S.  W.,  818. 

Grow  vs.  Davis,  203  Pac,  683. 

Garrard  vs.  Cantrell,  232  S.  W.,  911,  showing  what 
blanks  form  88  contains,  and  holding  that  the  rule 
is  otherwise  where  the  lease  is  already  in  ex- 
istence. 

See  Note  353. 

290.  In  an  action  by  lessor  against  les.5ee,  sub- 
sequent lessees  are  not  necessary,  though  possibly 
proper  parties, 

Patton  vs.  T.  P.  C.  &  O.  Co.,  225  S.  W.,  857. 

291.  A  lease  must  name  all  lessors,  and  can  not 
include  them  by  using  the  term  "et  al. " 

Patton  vs.  T.  P.  C.  &  O.  Co.,  225  S.  W.,  85  7.  But 
see  Supreme  Court  decision  in  this  case  dated 
March  8,  1922. 

292.  Rights  of  owner  of  surface  and  those  of 
owner  of  minerals  compared. 

Imperial   Elkhorn   Coal   Co.    vs.    Webb,    225    S.    W. 

1077. 
Mclntire  vs.  Marian  Coal  Co.,  227  S.  W.,  298. 
Strunk  vs.   Morris  Run   Coal   Mining  Co.,   114   Atl., 

519. 
See  Note   158. 


91  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

293.  A  co-tenant  may  recover  land  for  all  tenants. 
May  vs.  Slade,  24  Texas,  205. 

But  not  damages. 

Leonard   vs.    Worsham,    45    S.    W.,    336,    and    cases 
cited. 

294.  "Same  general  locality" — "vicinity,"  de- 
fined. 

Sunshine  Oil  Co;-p.  vs.  Randals,  226  S.  W.,  1090. 

295.  AYlien  a  Avell  is  discontinued  by  contractor 
at  orders  of  employer. 

Empire  Gas  &  Fuel  Co.  vs.  Couch,  226  S.  W.,  1103. 

296.  Venue  of  suit  to  cancel  lease  conferring  in- 
terest in  land. 

Stemmons  vs.  Matthai,  227  S.  W.,  364. 
Texas  Co.  vs.  Tankersley,  229  S.  W.,  67  2. 
See  Note  360. 

297.  A  promise  to  drill  if  production  had  on  ad- 
joining premises,  is  sufficient  consideration  to  sup- 
port a  lease. 

Burt  vs.  Deorsam,  227  S.  W.,  354. 
See  Note  143. 

298.  "When  the  thing  impliedly  to  be  done  is  of 
uncertain  nature,  an  express  agreement  in  reference 
to  same  will  exclude  an  implied  covenant  to  do  some- 
thing else,  though  it  may  be  that  subsequent  events 
may  show  that  such  other  thing  is  reasonable." 


92  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisioxs. 

Burt  vs.  Deorsam,  227  S.  W.,  354. 

299.  Classification  of  land  prior  to  sale  as  affect- 
ing right  of  State  to  make  second  grant  affecting 
minerals. 

Johnson  vs.  Sunshine  Oil  Co.,  227  S.  W.,  698. 

300.  "Begin  operations"  defined. 

Cox  vs.  Miller,  227  S.  W.,  652. 
See  Note  220. 

301.  Must  lessee  pay  rental  pendente  lite? 

Myers  vs.  Shertzer,  82  Kan.,  275;  108  Pac,  105. 
Richmond  vs.  Hog  Creek  Oil  Co.,  229  S.  W.,  563. 
See  Notes  127,  262. 

302.  "Producing  well"  defined. 
Kies  vs.  Williams,  2  28  S.  W.,  40,  42. 

303.  A  contract  and  lease  contemporaneously 
made  are  to  be  construed  together, 

Huber  vs.  Smith,  228  S.  W.,  339. 

304.  A  lease  containing  blanks  not  filled  in  is 
the  same  as  if  the  clause  eontaining  the  blanks  had 
not  been  inserted. 

Fleming  vs.  Head,  228  S.  W.,  302. 
See  Note  210. 

305.  "Barrel"  defined. 

Pope  vs.  Joschke,  228  S.  W.,  986. 


93  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions, 

306.  Conclusiveness  of  attorney 's  opinion  on  title 
where  provided  for  in  contract  to  convey. 

Lea  vs.  Helgerson,  228  S.  -W.,  992. 

307.  Abandonment  is  a  question  of  fact  for  the 
jury,  and  is  determined  largely  by  intention. 

Clutter  vs.  Wisconsin  Texas  Oil  Co.,  233  S.  W.,  322. 

Davis  vs.  Texas  Co.,  232  S.  W.,  549. 

Buie  vs.  Porter,  228  S.  W.,  999. 

Hall  vs.  McClesky,  228  S.  W.,  1004. 

Hall  vs.  Roberts,  228  S.  W.,  1008. 

Battle  vs.  Adams,  229  S.  W.,  930. 

Luman  vs.  Davis,  19  6  Pac,  1078. 

Millar  vs.  Mauney,  234  S.  W.,  498   (mixed  law  and 

fact). 
See  Note  310. 

308.  Effect  of  pasage  of  law  denouncing  an  act  on 
obligation  to  perform  contract  to  do  such  act. 

Buie  vs.  Porter,  228  S.  W.,  999. 

309.  Necessity  of  procuring  order  of  court  au- 
thorizing leasing  of  surface  rights  of  ward  by 
guardian. 

Buie  vs.  Porter,  228  S.  W.,  999, 

310.  Discussion  of  the  law  of  abandonment  as 
relating  to 

(a)  Rights  may  be  lost  by  abandonment. 

(b)  Abandonment  is  a  question  of  intention. 
(See  Note  307.) 

(c)  On  abandonment,  title  is  lost. 
(See  Note  331.) 


94  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

(d)  Long  delay  as  proof  of  abandonment. 

(e)  Absence  of  forfeiture  clause  immaterial. 

(f)  Legal  title  may  not  be  abandoned. 
(See  Note   348.) 

(g)  Cessation  as  proof  of  abandonment. 
(See  Note   28.) 

(h)     Abandonment  is  question  of  fact  for  jury. 

(See  Note  307.) 
(i)     Exhaustion  of  discovery  well. 

(See  Notes  32,  408.) 
(j)     Facts  amounting  to  abandonment. 

(See  Notes  24,  120.) 
(k)     Burden  of  proof. 
(1)     Definition  of  abandonment. 

Hall  vs.  McClesky,  228   S.  W.,   1004. 

Burnett  vs.  Summerour,  228  S.  W.,  1013   ("d,"  "e" 

aud  "g"  supra). 
Hall  vs.  Roberts,  228  S.  W.,  1008. 
Davis  vs.  Texas  Co.,  232   S.   W.,  549    ("d"  supra). 

311.  Extension  of  time  for  completing  well  does 
not  allow  more  time  than  is  necessary  to  complete 
well,  where  time  for  further  performance  starts  run- 
ning from  such  completion. 

Hall  vs.  McClesky,  228  S.  W.,  1004. 
Hall  vs.  Roberts,  228  S.  W.,  1008. 

312.  Rescission  by  vendor  on  the  strength  of  his 
superior  title, 

Maverick  vs.  Perez,  228  S.  W.,  148. 
Canon  vs.  Scott,  230  S.  W.,  1042. 

313.  A  "drilled  well"  is  a  completed  well.— 
"Fourth  well  drilled"  defined. 


95  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions.         "^ 

T.  p.  C.  &  O.  Co.  vs.  Harris,  230  S.  W.,  237. 

314.  Injunction  by  lessee  against  interference  by 
lessor. 

York  vs.  Warren  Oil  &  Gas  Co.,  229  S.  W.,  114. 

315.  Implied    obligation     to     exhaust    land    of 
mineral. 

Bates  vs.  Georgia  Fertilizer  Co.,  229  S.  W.,  153. 
See  Note  408. 

316.  Relinquishment   of  permit  is  equivalent  to 
abandonment. 

Fox  vs.  Robison,   229  S.  W.,  456. 

317.  Implied  obligation  to  develop  after  expira- 
tion where  holdover  permitted. 

Texas  Co.  vs.,  Curry,  229  S.  W.,  643. 

318.  Abandonment  can  not  be  claimed  by  lessor 
who  has  repudiated  lease. 

Texas  Co.  vs.  Curry,  229   S.   W.,   643. 

319.  An  assignment  of  an  oil  and  gas  lease  does 
not  import  a  warranty  of  title. 

White  vs.  Murphy,  229  S.  W.,  641. 
But  see  Zelma  Oil  Co.  vs.  Nemo  Oil  Co.,  203  Pac, 
203    (measure  of  damages). 

320.  Right  to  pay  quarterly  rentals  one  year  in 
advance. 


96  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

Link  vs.  State's  Oil  Corp.,  229  S.  W.,  693. 

321,  That  an  action  will  lie  against  a  grantor 
with  notice  conveying  to  an  innocent  purchaser. 

Olsen  vs.  Erwin,  229  S.  W.,  878. 

322,  Performance  by  third  party  is  sufficient  to 
prevent  forfeiture. 

Battle  vs.  Adams,  229  S.  W.,  930. 
See  Notes  227,  395. 

323,  A   deed   to   standing    timber,    severs    and 
confers  perpetual  right  to  remove. 

Chapman  vs.  Dearman,  229  S.  W.,  1112. 
See  Note  158. 

324,  ]\Ieasure  of  damages  for  failure  to  drill  offset 
well  where  there  is  drainage. 

Blair  vs.  Clear  Creek  Oil  &  Gas  Co.,  230  S.  W.,  286. 
See  Note  33(a). 

325,  Failure  to  drill  offset  well  as  an  abandon- 
ment. 

Blair  vs.  Clear  Creek  Oil  &  Gas  Co.,  230  S.  W.,  286 

326,  Acts  of  parties  con.strued  to  avoid  forfeiture. 
Milner  vs.  McGuire,  230  S.  W.,  421. 

327,  Refusal  to  accept  a  tender  on  ground  of  one 
objection  is  a  waiver  of  all  other  objections. 

Milner  vs.  McGuire,  230  S.  W.,  421. 


97  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

328.  Actual  payment  into  the  registiy  of  the 
court  of  money  tendered  permits  the  appellate  court 
to  render  rather  than  remand. 

Milner  vs.  McGuire,  230  S.  W.,  421. 

329.  Neither  a  verbal  assignment  no-r  a  mere  con- 
tract presupposing  an  assignment  will  support  the 
plea  of  innocent  purchaser. 

Atlantic  Oil  Producing  Co.  vs.  Dawkins,  230  S.  W., 
525. 

330.  Character  of  action,  diminution  of  damages, 
etc.,  in  suit  for  breach  of  contract  to  drill  oil  well. 

Osage  Oil  &  Ref.  Co.  vs.  Lee  Farm  Oil  Co.,  230  S. 

W.,  518. 
See  Note  376. 

331.  The  effect  of  an  abandonment  by  a  lessee  is 
to  divest  title  out  of  himself  and  re-invest  title  in 
lessor. 

S.  W.  Oil  Corp.  vs.  Bois  D'Arc  Creek  Oil  &  Gas  Co., 

230  S.  W.,  821. 
Four   Brotherhood    Oil    Co.    vs.    Keller,    235    S.    W.. 

604,  (abandonment  as  ground  for  forfeiture). 
See  Note  310. 

332.  Injunction  to  prevent  interference  with  the 
taking  of  casing-head  gas. 

Chas.   F.   Noble  Oil   &   Gas   Co.   vs.   Altex  Pet.   Co., 
230  S.  W.,  758. 

333.  It  seems  that  due  diligence  is  required  in 


98  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

filing  suit  to  rescind,  after  discovery  of  fraud  which 
would  support  action. 

Smith  vs.  Fleming,  231  S.  W.,  136,  140,  and  cases 

cited. 
See  Note  253. 

334.  Right  of  lessee  to  stimulate  flow  of  oil  which 
reduces  gasoline  production  from  gas,  where  lessee 
has  contracted  to  deliver  gas  for  gasoline  purposes. 

Beeson  vs.  Drake  Oil  Co.,  97  S.  E.,  414;  8  A.  L.  R., 

414. 
See  Note  422. 

335.  Where  lease  covers  various  tracts,  is  lessee 
under  obligation  to  treat  each  tract  as  if  covered  by 
separate  lease? 

Gypsy  Oil  Co.  vs.  Cover,  189  Pac,  540;   11  A.  L.  R., 

129,  and  note. 
Producer's  Oil  Co.  vs.  Snyder,  190  S.  W.,  514. 
See  Notes  31,  32,  76,  322,  410. 

336.  A  lessee  is  not  bound  to  carry  operations 
beyond  the  point  where  the  investment  is  profitable 
to  him. 

Gypsy  Oil  Co.  vs.  Cover,  189  Pac,  540;  ii  a.  L. 
R.,  129,  137,  and  cases  cited,  showing  what  may 
be  considered  in  determining  profitableness. 

Benavides  vs.  Hunt,  7  9  Texas,  p.  394;  15  S.  W.,  p. 
400. 

See  Notes  102,   350. 

337.  As  to  the  necessity  of  notice  to  grantee  in 
suit  to  rescind,  where  there  has  been  part  payment 
or  part  performance. 


99  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

Canon  vs.  Scott,  230  S.  W.,  1042,  1047. 
See  Note  430. 

338.  Effect  of  erasure  of  part  of  deed  or  lease  and 
insertion  therein. 

Nabors  vs.  Nabors,  230  S.  W.,  1109. 
Curry  vs.  Hintori,  231  S.  W.,  217. 
Smith  vs.  Fleming,  231  S.  W.,  136. 

339.  It  is  not  necessary  to  allege  fraud  as  a  con- 
clusion, but  allepration  of  acts  from  which  the  court 
infers  fraud  is  sufficient. 

Morris  vs.  McGough,  230  S.  W.,  1092. 

340.  There  can  be  no  innocent  purchaser  under 
an  altered  instrument  where  the  title  depends  on 
the  alteration. 

Curry  vs.  Hinton,  231  S.  W.,  217. 
See   Steffian    vs.    Milmo    Nat.    Bank,    6    S.    W.,    82  3 
(undelivered  deed). 

341.  There  is  no  estoppel  by  acceptance  of  rentals 
for  the  time  a  lease  is  unquestionably  good  to  contest 
it  for  a  time  it  is  clearly  not  good. 

Curry  vs.  Hinton,  231  S.  W.,  217. 

342.  Distinction  between  "condition"  and  "limi- 
tation." 

Eastham  vs.  Eastham,  231  S.  W.,  221. 

343.  The  mere  statement  in  a  pleading  that  a 
party  is  ready  to  pay  is  not  good  as  a  plea  of  tender. 


100  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

Fisher  vs.  Gulf  Prod.  Co.,  231  S.  \V.,  4  50. 

344.  Where  lessee  begins  operations  he  must  con- 
tinue them  with  diligence,  though  he  was  not  re- 
quired to  begin  them. 

Blair  vs.  Clear  Creek  Oil  &  Gas  Co.,  230  S.  W.,  286. 

345.  Written  or  typewritten  words  control  over 
the  printed  words  of  a  contract,  where  there  is  a 
conflict. 

Producers  Oil  Co.  vs.  Snyder,  190  S.  W.,  514. 
Ins.  Co.  vs.  Kemper,  34  S.  W.,  393, 

346.  May  a  lessee  under  an  oil  lease  sublet  with- 
out landlord's  consent! 

R.  S.,  Art.  5489. 

Smith  vs.  Womack,  231  S.  W.,  840,  indicating  that 

he  may  if  the  lease  is  a  conveyance. 
See  Lowry  vs.  Atlantic  Coal  Co.,  115  Atl.,  847. 
See  Notes  228,  252. 

347.  As  to  validity  of  a  release  by  president  of 
a  corporation  which  has  forfeited  its  right  to  do 
business  by  non  payment  of  franchise  tax. 

Davis  vs.  Texas  Co.,  232  S.  W.,  549. 

348.  A  lease  conveying  a  legal  title  may  not  be 
abandoned,  but  it  seems  that  one  conveying  the  right 
to  explore  may  be. 

Davis  vs.  Texas  Co.,  232  S.  W.,  549. 
Scott  vs.  Laws,  215  S.  W.,  81,  13  A.  L.  R.,  369  and 
note. 


101  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

Marnett  Oil  &  Gas  Co.  vs.  Munsey,  232  S.  W.,  867, 

872,  869. 
Walls  vs.  Cruse,  235  S.  W.,  199. 
See  Notes  235,  310. 

349.  Estoppel  of  a  lessee  to  assert  his  title  must 
be  based  on  affirmative  acts,  etc. 

Davis  vs.  Texas  Co.,  232  S.  W.,  549. 

350.  Where  royalties,  or  a  fixed  sum,  are  to  be 
paid  out  of  profits  of  a  lease,  the  lessee  is  not  required 
to  operate  or  develop  at  a  loss. 

Owens  vs.  Curd,   232   S.  W.,   639,    (distingiushing  a 
lease  calling  for  payment  out  of  "profits"). 

See  Notes  336,  359. 

351.  A  leasehold  interest  under  a  lease  not  au- 
thorizing an  assignment  is  not  subject  to  forced 
sale. 

Boone  vs.  Bank,  43  S.  W.,  594. 

But  see  Farnura  vs.  Hefner,  79  Cal.,  575;   21  Pac, 
955. 

352.  "Commercial  lease"  defined. 
Garrard  vs.  Cantrell,  232  S.  W.,  911,  912. 

353.  A  contract  to  give  a  lease  need  not  describe 
the  lease  very  definitely. 

Gairard  vs.  Cantrell,  2i;2   S.  W.,  911. 
See  Note  28  9. 

354.  The  courts  will  take  judicial  notice  of  the 


102  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

discovery  and  use  of  gas,  and  of  the  fact  that  its 
discovery  increases  the  value  of  land. 

Kollaer  vs.    Puckett,    232  S.   W.,    914,    916. 

355.  Time  from  which  notice  of  forfeiture  is 
effective. 

Epperson  vs.  Helbron,  225  S.  W.,  345;  15  A.  L.  R., 
597. 

356.  Where  one  contracts  to  convey  a  lease  on 
land  he  has  a  contract  to  buy,  he  may  insist  on  his 
rights  under  the  contract  to  sell  the  lease. 

Garrard  vs.  Cantrell.  2,12  S.  W.,  911. 

And  he  need  not  have  a  contract  to  buy,  if  he  is 
able  to  perform  his  contract  to  sell  at  the  proper 
time. 

Long  vs.  Martin,  234  S.  W.,  91. 

357.  Where  liquidated  damages  are  recoverable 
they  may  be  recovered  though  no  actual  damages  are 
suffered. 

Garrard  vs.  Cantrell,  232  S.  W.,  911.  See  for  dis- 
cussion of  liquidated  damages,  when  recoverable 
and  when  not. 

See  Long  vs.  Martin,  234  S.  W.,  91,  holding  money 
paid  under  escrow  contract  to  be  liquidated 
damages,  not  penalty. 

358.  Lease  may  be  surrendered  orally. 
Ford  vs.  Miller,  232  S.  W.,  604. 

359.  As  to  what  is  necessary  wliere  part  of  the 


103  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions, 

consideration  for  a  transfer  is  to  be  paid  out  of 
production. 

Owens  vs.   Curd,    232    S.   W.,    639. 
See  Notes  35,  350. 

360.  Venue  of  suit  for  severed  minerals  as  dis- 
tinguished from  suit  for  land. 

Kelvin  Lumber  &  Supply  Co.  vs.  Copper  State  Mininje: 
Co.,  232  S.  W.,  858. 
;         See  Note  296. 

361.  A  deed  in  escrow,  where  the  terms  of  the 
escrow  have  been  complied  with,  relates  back  and 
eonvej'S  title  from  date  of  delivery. 

Gully  vs.  Nystel,  233  S.  W.,  122,   125. 

362.  "Mineral"  defined. 

Carothers  vs.  Mills,  233  S.  W.,  155*,  157. 

363.  As  bearing  on  right  of  pipe  line  company  to 
store  its  own  oil  in  its  own  storage  tanks,  see  the 
following  case  holding  that  a  warehouseman  may 
not  store  his  own  grain  in  his  own  warehouse  in 
contravention  of  the  rights  of  the  public. 

Central  Elevator  Co.   vs.   People,   174   111.,   203;    51 

N.  E.,  254. 

364.  The  existence  of  a  lien  under  which  there  is 
no  ouster  or  threatened  ouster  will  not  excuse  de- 
velopment. 

Clutter  vs.  Wisconsin  Texas  Oil  Co.,  233  S.  W.,  322. 
See  Note  262. 


104  Texas  Oil  axd  Gas  Decisions. 

365.  For  distinguishing  features  between  a  deed 
and  a  will,  see 

T.  p.  C.  &  O.  Co.  vs.  Bruce,  233  S.  W.,  535. 
See  Note  433. 

366.  What  amounts  to  delivery  of  a  deed? 
T.  P.  C.  &.  O.  Co.  vs.  Bruce,  233  S.  W.,  535. 

367.  When  is  oil  discovered? 

T.  P.  C.  &  O.  Co.  vs.  Bruce,  233  S.  W.,  535. 
See  Note  433. 

368.  A  parol  contract  to  sell  land  or  alternatively 
to  pay  liquidated  damages,  is  not  enforceable  in 
specie  or  for  damages. 

Sonnenberg  vs.  Ernst,  233  S.  W.,   564. 

369.  Limitation  does  not  run  against  wife's  suit 
to  cancel  oil  and  gas  lease  on  homested. 

Thomason  vs.  McEntire,  233  S.  W.,  616. 

370.  Waiver  and  estoppel  distinguished. 
Walker  vs.  Lane,   233  S.  W.,  634. 

371.  Extension  of  time  for  performance  to  an 
assignee  under  lessee,  as  inuring  to  benefit  of  lessee 
under  doctrine  of  estoppel. 

Walker  vs.  Lane,  233  S.  W.,  634. 

372.  Parol  rescission  of  deed. 


105  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

Hunt  vs.  Evans.  233  S.  W.,  854. 

373.  For  a  consideration  of  the  law  of  rescission 
on  ground  of  fraudulent  concealment,  see 

Long  vs.  Martin,  234,  S.  W.,  91. 

374.  "The  only  burden  placed  by  the  escrow  is 
that  before  a  party  may  recover  on  a  contract  in 
escrow  he  must  show  he  has  performed  the  condi- 
tions, or  offered  to  do  so,  and  was  prevented  there- 
from, without  his  fault." 

Long  vs.  Martin,  234,  S.  W.,  91. 

375.  For,  discussion  of  reilative  oblip^ations  of 
parties  to  contract  to  convey  with  reference  to 
making  and  meeting  objections  to  title,  see 

Long  vs.  Martin,  234  S.  W.,  91,  99,  and  cases  cited. 
See  Note  435. 

376.  Measure  of  damages  for  breach  of  contract 
to  drill  a  well. 

Henry  Oil  Co.  vs  Head,  163  S.  W.,  311. 
See  Note  330. 

377.  Use  of  a  stereotype  clause  in  printed  form 
will  not  be  given  unusual  construction  merely  be- 
cause used  under  circumstances  rendering  applica- 
tion of  usual  construction  difficult  or  impossible. 

Turner  vs.  Lick  Creek  Oil  &  Gas  Co.,  234  S.  W.,  191. 

378.  Development   on   nearby    lands    does    not 


106  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

satisfy  an  obligation  to  drill  on  a  particular  tract, 
though  such  obligation  is  implied. 

Keystone  Gas  Co.  vs.  Salisbury,  234  S.  W.,  290. 

379.  An  oil  and  gas  lease  is  a  cloud  on  the  title 
to  land. 

Hester  vs.  Shuster,  234  S.  W.,  713. 

380.  Alternative  actions  available  for  lessor  ^vhen 
lessee  has  forfeited  his  rights  by  non  development. 

Millar  vs.  Mauney,  234  S.  W.,  498. 
See  Note  94.  » 

381.  "Merchantable"  or  "marketable"  title  de- 
fined. 

Ailing  vs.  Vander  Slacken,  194  S.  W.,  443. 
Giles  vs.  Union  Land  Co.,  196  S.  W.,  312. 
Roberts  vs.  McFaddin,  74  S.  W.,  p.  109. 
Hinton  vs.  Martin,  236  S.  W.,  267,  on  whether  title 
acquired  by  adverse  possession  is  marketable. 

382.  A  general  manager  of  a  coal  company  has 
no  implied  authority  to  surrender  a  lease. 

Standard  Island  Creek  Coal  Co.  vs.  Shamrock  Coal 
Co.,  104  S.  E.,  106. 

383.  A  lessee  is  the  agent  of  lessor  as  pertaining 
to  the  right  of  lessor  at  equity  to  require  an  account- 
ing. 

Sperry  vs.  Premier   Pocahontas  Collieries  Co.,    104 
S.   E..   486. 


107  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

384.  A  lessee  may  not  use  leased  premises  for 
development  of  otlier  premises. 

Clayborn  vs.  Camilla  Red  Ash  Coal  Co.,  105  S.  E., 
117;  128  Va.,  383;  15  A.  L.  R.,  946. 

385.  When  delay  rentals  once  paid  may  be  re- 
covered, 

Hope  Natural  Gas  Co.  vs.  Jarvis.  106  S.  E.,  889. 

386.  Kind  of  instrument  necessary  to  accomplish 
the  surrender  of  an  oil  and  gas  lease. 

Roberts  vs.  Huntington  Dev.  &  Gas  Co.,  109  S.  E.. 
348. 

387.  Surface  owners  as  parties  to  boundary  suit 
between  owners  of  mineral?. 

Georgia  Peruvian  Ochre  Co.  vs.  Cherokee  Ochre  Co., 
108  S.  E.,  609. 

388.  An  arrangement  by  lessee  with  an  officer  of 
the  depository  bank  for  the  payment  of  rental  in 
a  manner  different  from  that  authorized  by  lease, 
will  not  prevent  a  forfeiture  under  an  "unless" 
lease. 

Harter  vs.  Edwards,  195  Pac,  607. 

389.  "Payment"  defined. 

Eastern  Oil  Co.  vs.  Smith,  195  Pac,  773. 

390.  "Unless"  clause  as  authorizing  surrender  by 
non-payment  of  rental. 


108  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

Eastern  Oil  Co.  vs.  Smith,  195  Pac,  773. 
Elless  vs.  State  Bank,   195   Pac,   875. 
See  Note  69. 

391.  Optional  contracts  are  construed  strictly 
against  the  party  not  bound. 

Eastern  Oil  Co.  vs.  Smith,  195  Pac,  773. 

392.  "Depositor"  defined. 

Eastern  Oil  Co.  vs.  Smith,  195  Pac,  p.  780. 

393.  Surrender  clause  authorizes  Icisee  by 
making  payment  to  surrender,  not  lessor  by  making 
payment  to  demand  surrender. 

Elless  vs.  State  Bank,  195  Pac,  875. 

394.  As  to  whether  record  of  assignment  of  lease 
is  notice  to  lessor. 

Parris  vs.  Butler  County  Oil  Co.,  195  Pac,  879. 

395.  It  seems  that  rentals  may  be  paid  by  any 
party  at  interest. 

Parris  vs.  Butler  County  Oil  Co.,  195  Pac,  879. 
See  Note  227. 

396.  The  frightening  of  cattle  is  not  an  element 
of  damages  under  contract  to  pay  for  damages  to 
growing  crops. 

Hiatt  vs.  Wichita  Natl.  Gas  Co.,  196  Pac,  448. 

397.  Escape  of  oil  or  gas  from  pipe  line,  permitted 


109  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

negligently  by  pipe  line  company,  as  basis  of  suit 
for  damage  to  cattle. 

Todd  vs.  Prairie  Pipe  Line  Co.,  196  Pac,  623. 
See  Note  398. 

398.  Injuries  to  cattle  from  cyanide  pond. 

Williams  Estate  Co.  vs.  Nevada  Wonder  Mining  Co., 

196  Pac,  844. 
See  Note  397. 

399.  The  lessor  may  use  the  leased  premises  in 
any  way  so  as  not  to  interfere  with  operations. 

Primmer  vs.  C.  C.  Harris  Oil  Co.,  196  Pac,  921. 
See  Note  270. 

400.  When  and  under  what  kind  of  instruments 
are  mineral  interests  to  be  taxed? 

Stephens  County  vs.  Mid-Kansas  Oil  &  Gas  Co.,  —  S. 

W.,   — ,    (No.    3569,   pending   in    Texas    Supreme 

Court  on  certified  question). 
Texas   Co.   vs.   Daugherty,    107    Texas,    226;    176   S. 

W.,  717;  L.  R.  A.,  1917  F,  9S9. 
Luman  vs.  Davis,  196  Pac,  1078. 
See  Note  252. 

401.  When  are   individuals  pai'tners  in   oil   and 
gas  lease  matters? 

Wells  vs.  Shiver,  197  Pac,  460. 

A.  C.  Houston  Lumber  Co.  vs.  Marshall,   19";    Pac, 

861. 
Laughner  vs.  Wally,  112  Atl.,  105. 
Hand  vs.  Allen,   128  N.  E.,  305. 
Harris  vs.  Young,  131  N.  E.,  670. 
See  Notes  133,  146,  263. 


110  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

402.  Parol  evidence  inadmissible  to  vary  terms 
of  oil  and  gas  contract,  where  no  fraud  or  mutual 
mistake  is  shown. 

Hazelton  vs.  Chaffin,  197  Pac,  870. 

403.  Who  may  act  for  a  bank  in  giving  a  lease. 
Smith  vs.  First  Nat.  Bank,  198  Pac,  103. 

404.  Rule  for  measure  of  damages  for  injury  ta 
mineral  leasehold  estate,  stated. 

Producers  Supply  Co.  vs.   Maple  Leaf  Oil   Co.,   198 
Pac,  577. 

405.  A  lease  expires  at  end  of  stated  term  unless: 
extended  by  production. 

Perkins  vs.  Saunders,  198  Pac,  954. 
Parks  vs.  Sinai  Oil  &  Gas  Co.,  201  Pac,  517, 
See  Note  285. 

406.  A  person  holding  a  lease  as  security  for  a 
debt  is  bound  to  pay  the  rentals  thereunder. 

Gordon  vs,  Wilcox.  200  Pac,  282. 

407.  Second  contract  construed  to  supplant  first,, 
and  fix  rights  and  obligations  of  parties. 

Carder  vs.  Blackwell  Oil  &  Gas  Co.,  201  Pac,  252. 
Calame  vs.  Paisley,  130  N.  E.,  310   (extension). 

408.  When  are  minerals  in  a  tract  of  land  ex- 
hausted ? 


Ill  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

Van  Liew  vs.  Norwood-White  Coal  Co.,  179  N.  W., 

960. 
See  Note  315. 

409.  Injunction  by  lessor  against  continued  and 
unprofitable  drilling  by  lessee. 

Elston  vs.  Atlas  Oil  Co.,  86  So.,  490. 

410.  Where  several  lessors  join  in  a  lease  cover- 
ing several  tracts,  a  well  on  either  tract  satisfies 
the  lease. 

Ohio  Oil  Co.  vs.  Fowler,  128  N.  E.,  626. 

See  Producers'  Oil  Co.  vs.  Snyder,  190  S.  W.,  514. 

requiring  development  on  each  of  several  tracts. 
See  Note  335. 

411.  When  is  lien  of  mortgagee  of  leasehold  inter- 
est superior  to  that  of  pai-tner'/ 

Harris  vs.  Young,  131  N.  E.,  670. 

412.  All  persons  at  interest  and  who  will  be 
affected  by  a  decree,  are  indispensable. 

Associated  Oil  Co.  vs.  Miller,  269  Fed.,  16. 

413.  A  clause  for  arbitration  of  a  lease  relieves 
the  lease  of  certain  uncertainties,  as,  for  instance, 
rate  of  renewal  payments  where  left  to  future  agree- 
jnent. 

Dickinson  vs.  Robinson,  272  Fed.,  77. 

414.  "Release"  and  "disclaimer"  defined  and 
distinguished. 


112  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

Miller  vs.  Eastabrook,  273  Fed.,   143. 

415.  Who  are  not  "willful  trespassers?" 

Jeems   Bayou   Hunting   &   Fishing   Club   vs.    United 
States,  274  Fed.,  18. 

416.  A  covenant  in  an  assignment  is  for  the  bene- 
fit of  the  lessee,  not  the  lessor. 

McLear  vs.  Balmat,  186  N.  Y.  Sup.,  180. 

417.  Upon    whom    may    notice    to    develop    be 
served  ? 

Great  Western  Pet.  Corp.  vs.  Samson,  234  S.  W.,  727. 
See  Notes  1,  430. 

418.  "Immediately"  defined. 
Bell  vs.  Kilburn,  234  S.  W.,  730. 

419.  Forfeiture  of  an  assignment  is  governed  by 
the  rules  of  forfeiture  of  a  lease. 

Bell  vs.  Kilburn,  234  S.  W.,  730. 

420.  Injunction  will  not  lie  to  enforce  forfeiture. 

Burnett  Coal  Mining  Co.  vs.  Schrepferman,   133  N. 
E.,  34. 

421.  "If"  and  "then"  defined. 

Paraffine  Oil   Co.   vs.   Cruce,   14  A.   L.   R.,   952,  and 
note;    162    Pac,    713. 

422.  Right  of  lessee  to  stimulate  flow  of  gas  so 
as  to  reduce  rents. 


113  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

Bassell  vs.  West  Va.  Cent.  Gas  Co.,  103  S.  E.,  116; 

12  A.  L.  R.,  1398,  and  note. 
See  Note  334. 

423.  Garnisliment  of  money  in  escrow. 

Hallock  vs.  Natl.  Body  &  Mfg.  Co.,  188  Pac,  479; 
10  A.  L.  R.,  737. 

424.  Want  of  delivery  of  a  deed  as  affecting  the 
innocent  purchaser  rule. 

Steffian  vs.  Milmo  Nat.  Bank,  6  S.  W.,  823. 

425.  Measure  of  damages  for  prevention  of  drill 
ing. 

Note,  15  A.  L.  R.,  7  68. 

426.  Relative  rights  of  coal  lessee  and  oil  lessee. 

Claborn  vs.  Camilla  Red  Ash  Coal  Co.,  128  Va.,  383; 

105  S.  E.,  117;    15  A.  L.  R.,  946. 
Harbison-Walker    Refractories    Co.    vs.    Portsmouth 

Refractories  Co.,  276  Fed.,  520. 

427.  A  debtor  who  cancels  a  pre-existing  debt  as 
consideration  for  purchase  is  not  an  innocent  pur- 
chaser. 

Overstreet  vs.  Manning,  67  Texas,  599,  657;  4  S.  W. 
248. 

428.  "Franchise"  defined — license  distinguished. 
Davis  vs.  Texas  Co.,  232  S.  W.,  p.  560. 

429.  "Technical  words  are  to  be  interpreted  as 


114  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

usually  understood  by  persons  in  the  profession  or 
business  to  which  they  relate  unless  it  is  evident  that 
they  were  used  in  a  different  sense." 

Frost  vs.  Martin,  203  S.  W.,  p.   7  4,  holding  expert 
testimony  admissible. 

430.  Demand  for  performance  is  held  to  be  pre- 
requisite to  forfeiture  of  estate  held  on  condition 
subsequent. 

Benavides  vs.  Hunt,  79  Texas,  p.  397;    15  S.  W.,  p. 

402. 
See  Notes  1,  337,  417. 

431.  Measure  of  damages  for  breach  of  contract 
to  lease. 

Wilkirson   vs.   Yarbrough,   No.    9695,    2nd   Court   of 
Civil  Appeals,  11-26-21. 

432.  "From  and  after"  defined. 
Tull  vs.  Ball,  200  S.  W.,  988. 

433.  "Discovery"  defined. 

U.    S.    vs.    Safe    Investment    Gold    Mining    Co.,    258 

Fed.,  872. 
Luman  vs.  Davis,  196  Pac,  1078. 
Moore  vs.  Palmer,  174  N.  W._,  p.  95, 
See  Note  367. 

434.  "Royalty"  defined. 

Curlee  vs.  Anderson,   235   S.   W.,   622. 

435.  "Full  and  complete  abstract"  defined: 
waiver  of  objections  to  abstract. 


115  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

Coughran  vs.  Briam,  235  S.  W.,  627. 
See  Note  375, 

436.  Mineral  lessee  may  use  surface  to  extent 
necessary. 

Mid-Texas  Pet.  Co.  vs.  Colcord,  235  S.  W.,  710. 
Friedline  vs.  Hoffman,  115  Atl.,  845, 
See  Note  270. 

437.  As  to  conflicting  obligations  of  lessee  under 
contracts  with  ad.joining  mineral  interest  holders,  see 

Mid-Texas  Pet.  Co.  vs.  Colcord,  235  S.  W.,  p.  715. 

438.  Requisites  of  contract  under  Statute  of 
Frauds. 

Latham  vs.  Kistler,  235  S.  W.,  938. 

439,  Acts  of  le-sor  as  constituting  estoppel  to 
claim  term  of  lease  has  expired. 

De  Flores  vs.  Smith,  236   S.  W.,  505. 

440,  The  bringing  in  of  nearby  dry  holes  does 
not  excuse  non  development  under  express  contract 
to  drill. 

Mollohan  vs.   Patton,   202   Pac,   616. 

441,  A  lease  may  not  be  released  by  the  placing 
of  a  release  on  record  by  the  lessee  without  the 
lessor's  knowledge, 

Farlow  vs.  Frankson,  203  Pac,  299. 


116  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions, 

442.  A  lease  and  a  contract  subsequently  made 
will  be  construed  together. 

Towell  vs.  Fluharty,  203  Pac,  702,  (showing  con- 
sideration for  supplemental  contract). 

443.  Lessee  is  under  duty  to  clear  the  record  after 
the  expiration  of  lease. 

Caylor  vs.  Bankers  Oil  Co.,  203  Pac,  735. 

444.  A  State  may  enact  a  law  forbidding  waste, 
such  being  a  valid  exercise  of  its  police  power. 

Walls  vs.  Midland  Carbon  Co.,  254  U.  S.,  300,  (hold- 
ing landowner  has  no  absolute  property  in  fugitive 
minerals). 

445.  What  is  diligence  in  drilling  second  well 
where  first  is  dry  hole,  and  development  liquidates 
rentals. 

Knight  Bros.  vs.  Standard  Oil  Co..  84  So.,  653. 


INDEX. 

A. 

ABANDONMENT — See,  Temporary  Cessation. 

Section 

Of  legal  title  impossible 348 

Effect  of,  is  to  re-invest  title 331 

Can   not  be  claimed  by  lessor  who  has   repudiated.  ..  .318 

Dlstinguishedr    from    forfeiture 23,   157 

What  ts  required  to  amount  to 24,  120 

Effect    of 44 

Failure   to   pay   rental    as 45 

Failure  to  drill  offset  well 325 

Failure  to  drill  second  well 57 

Question  of  fact 307 

Discussion  of  law   of  abandonment 310 

ACCIDENT — 

As  affecting  default  in  rental  payment 63,  75 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT — 

Defect  in  wife's  separate,  where  land  not)  hee  separate 

property  or  homestead 98 

Conclusiveness  of  Notary's  certificate 130 

Defective  statement  of  venue  in  scilicet 184 

ACTIONS — 

In  trespass  to  try  title  by  lessee 15 

Form  of,  for  non-development 380 

Ex  contractu   or  ex  delicto   for  drainage 49 

For  breach  of  covenant  or;  breacli  of  condition 65,   73 

Form,    of,    for    failure   to   pay    rentals    under    "unless" 

and  "or"  leases 129 

Election   of  remedies 65,  74 

To  cancel  and  trespass  to  try  title  may  be  joined.  ..  .154 
When  for  specific  performance  and  when  fo»  damages.  .181 

For  injuries  to  cattle  from  cyanide  pond 398 

For    forfeiture     distinguished     from     cancellation     for 

breach  of  contract 232,  233,   269 

ADVERSE  POSSESSION — 

Whether  title  based  on,  is  marketable 381 

Of  mineral  rights  as  affecting  limitation 52 

Of  surface  where  minerals  severed 52 


118  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

ALTERATION — 

Section 

T\Tiere  duplicates  held  by  both  parties 87,  88 

By  filling  in  of  blanks  by  lessee 88 

By  erasure  and  insertion  in  deed  or  lease 338 

ARBITRATION — 

Clause  for,  in  lease  cures  uncertainty 413 

ASSIGNMENT — See,  Innocent  Purchaser. 

Without      consent   of  landlord 345 

Forced  sale  of  leasehold  Interest,  lease  not  authorizing. 351 

Of  rentals,  not  to  be  recorded J 

Liability  of  lessee  for  acts  of  sub-lessee 11 

Effect    of.     by    royalty     owner    on    remaining    royalty 

interests     Iff 

Discovery  by  any  assignee  vests  title  to  whole  lease..    31 

Only  obligations  imposed  by,  run  with  land 34 

As    authorizing    payment    of    rental    on    part    of    land 

leased'   96,   227,228 

Must  be  in  writing 17ff 

Forfeiture  of,  governed  by  rules  for  forfeiting  leases.. 419 

Contract  to  assign  must  be  in  writing 177 

Impliedly  authorized  by  naming  assigns 22S 

Right  to  pay  rental  on  one  assigned  part  not  applicable 

where  several  as'^ignments  converge  in  one  holder..  229 

Covenant  in,  is  for  benefit  of  lessee,  not  lessor 416 

Right  of,   as   affecting  obligation   to  develop 230 

Does   not   import   covenant   of   title 319^ 

ATTORNEY  AND  CLIENT — 

Rights  of  attorney  employed  to  cancel  where  client 
compromises  153 

Conclusiveness  of  attorneys  opinion  on  title,  in  con- 
tract to  convey 306 

B. 

BANKS^ 

Acceptance  by,  of  check  for  rental  makes  payment 
good    67,  141 

Is  agent  of  lessor 114 

Effect  of  consolidation  of  depository  bank  with  another 
bank    ; 19& 

Arrangement  with  officer  of,  for  payment  of  rental  does 
not  save  lease 388 

Who  may  act  for,  in  giving  lease 40$ 


119  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions, 

bills  of  exceptions — 

Section 
To  order  refusing  motion  for  continuance 188 

C. 

CANCELLATION — ^See,  Forfeiture,  Rescission. 

CASING — 

Rights  of  parties  where  removal  of,  is  objected  to. 204,  288 

CHECK — 

Is  not  cash   in  advance 46 

Payment  by,  is  good  if  banlc  accepts 67,  141 

Payment   by   dishonored,   is   not   goodr 226 

In  payment  of  rental,  must  reach  bank  by  due  date... 271 

CLASSIFICATION — 

As  affecting  right  of  S'tate  to  convey  minerals 299 

COMMINGLING  OF  PRODUCT — 

Commingling   of   product 20 

COMMISSIONERS  COURT — 

May  not  lease  road 40 

CONSIDERATION — See,  Pleading,  Restoration. 

Nominal,   as  supporting  lease 6,  37 

One  dollar 37 

Goes  to  whole  lease 84 

Must  support  waiver  of  breach 282 

Requisite     in      lease,      regardless      of     acceptance     of 

rentals     95,   90 

Inadequacy  of,   in   suit  to  rescind..... 118,   142 

Must  be  -inducement,   not   expense 144 

Right   to   recover   recited   though   unpaid 166 

Right  of  grantor  to  dispute  recitation  of  payment  of.  .167 

Want  of,  is  nullified  by  acceptance  of  rental 168 

Recited,   though   unpaid,  as   supporting  lease 170 

Requisites,     where     consideration     to     be    paid     out     of 

production    359 

For  waiver  of  forfeiture  as  to  part  of  land  as  support- 
ing original  lease 185 

Breach     of    promise     amounting     to,     as     ground     for 

rescission    190,   191 

Recitation  of  payment  of,  in  recorded  instrument  pro- 
tects innocent  purchaser 267 

Promise  as  supporting  lease 297 

For  supplemental  contract 442 


120  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

CONSTITUTIONAL  LAW — 

S'ection 

Validity    of   statute    restricting   waste 444 

Validity  of  statute  authorizing  guardian  to  lease  ward's 

land  beyond  minority 100 

Whether  "condition  of  dfefeasance"  Invalidates  lease  on 

homestead    155 

Validity   of   statute   restricting   drilling   to    more   than 

100  feet  from  railways 161 

Power  of  Legislature  to  create  body  with  authority  to 

regulate  mines 272 

CONSTRUCTION — See,  Evidence,  Term,  Time. 

•  Of  forfeiture  compared  with,  of  breach  of  contract. . .  .26ft 

^ost  favorable  to  lessor 25,   64 

.To  allow  development  to  proceed 38 

.Rule  of,  in  deeds,  allowing  grantee  to  elect  not  appli- 
cable to  oil  leases 70 

•Ambiguity  not  construed  to  allow  forfeiture 71 

Of  "unless"  clause  in  lease 44,  69 

Exclude  first  and  include  last  day 101 

Right  of  forfeiture  not  presumed 103 

Whether  "unless"  lease  is   an   option 69 

Of  two  repugnant  clauses '. 122 

Of  reservation  of  right  of  way 139 

That  placed  on  lease  by  parties  binds  the  courts 160 

Strict,  when  forfeiture  claimed!  for  breach  of  condition 

subsequent    212 

Rules  for,  of  leases  stated 221 

Of  lease  and  contract  contemporaneously  made 303 

Of  lease  and  contract  subsequently  mad"© 442 

Of  lease  containing  blanks  not  filled  in 304 

Of  agreement  extending  time  for  completion  of  well.. 311 

Acts  of  parties  construed  to  avoid  forfeiture 326 

Of  lease  covering  various  tracts,  as  whether  each  tract 

is  to  be  treated  as  covered  by  separate  lease 335 

Use  of  stereotype  clause  in  printed  form  under  cir- 
cumstances rendering  usual  construction  in- 
applicable      377 

Strict  against  party  not  bound  in  option  contract 391 

Of  second  contract,   in  light  of  former  contract 407 

Written    or    typewritten    words    control    over    printed 

words    345 

Settlements  of  controversies  favored' 236 

Strict,    placed    on    conveyance    establishing    trust    for 

handling  of  property 281 

Express    agreement    excludes    implied 298 

Via  major  as  affecting ; 283 

Technical    words 429 


121  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

CONTRACTORS — 

S'ection 
Rights  of,   when  principal  takes  over  well 295 

CONTRACTS — See  Consideration,  Construction, 
Reformation.   Statute  of  Frauds.  - 

To  give  lease,  need  not  describe  lease  very  definitely.  .353 
Revocation  of  ofEer  to  be  communicated  to  offeree. ..  .169 
To  deliver  oil  or  gas  to  be  produced  must  be  in  writing.  174 
Effect  of  fact  that  seller  has  only  contract  for  lease.. 356 

Performance  after  made  illegal 308 

To  assign  lease  must  be  in  writing 177 

Breach  of,  to  drill  well 330 

Where    time    essential,    vis    major  will    not    excuse    non- 
performance     283 

To  give  lease  on  Producers  88  form,  uncertain 289 

Frightening  cattle  not  an  element  of  damages  in  con- 
tract  to  pay    for  crops 391 

Distinction  between   forfeitvire  and  holding  party   to..  269 

CONVEYANCE — See,  Deeds. 

By  lessor  of  land  covered  by  unilateral  lease  as  annul- 
ment        29 

CO-TENANTS — See,  Life  Tenants. 

Failure  of  one  to  sign  lease 5 

Right  of  one,  to  develop 22 

Payment    of    rental    to    one,    binds    all    in    absence    of 

demand 238 

As  necessary  parties 264 

Right  to  recover  land  and  damages  for  all  tenants.  .  .  .293 

COVENANTS     RUNNING     WITH   LAND— See, 

Assignment. 

To  pay  rentals 34 

D. 

DAMAGES — See,  Contracts,  Measure  of  Damages. 

Authorized  by  breach  of  covenant  but  not  by  breach  of 

condition    73 

Liquidated,    discussed 357 


122  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions, 

dedication — 

What  is   sufficient  for 124 

DEEDS — See,  Alteration,  Description,  Reserva- 
tion. 

Reservation  of  minerals  in 10 

Construction  applicable  to,  of  right  of  grantee  to  elect, 

not   applicable   to   oil   leases 70 

Description  necessary  in  reservation 79 

Limitations  in,  as  to  use  and  title 123,   124,   200,   207 

Presumption  of 203 

Filling  in   blanks   in,   after   acknowledgment 210 

On   condition   subsequent,   is   absolute   when 211 

What    amounts    to    delivery    of 366 

Forged   or  defective,   as   affecting  limitation 223 

Reservation  and  exception  distinguished. . . . .- 246 

Distinguished    from    wills 365 

Effect  of  "more  or  less" 247 

Quit-claim,  defined   and  distinguished 256 

To  acreage  interest  good 258 

Delivery     essential     but     not     where     grantor     proper 

custod'ian     261 

To  timber,  grants  perpetual  right  to  remove 323 

DEFINITIONS— 

"Commencing  of  well" 4,  217 

"Abandonment"    23 

"Forfeiture"    23 

"Oil    in    paying    quantities" 35,   102 

"Unless"    and    "or"    leases 44,   62,   129,   157 

"Cash  In  advance" 46 

"Depositor"     392 

"Transfer  of  reversion"  by  lessor 52 

"Assignment  of  lease"  by  lessee 53 

"Said  date"    58 

"Immediately"    418 

"Covenants"  and  "condltioii.s"   distinguished 65,  73 

"Then"    421 

"Delay    money" 66 

"If    421 

"Ejusdem    Generis" 78 

"Waste" 81 

"Begin  operations" 300 

"Producing    well" 302 

"Barrel"     305 

"Drilled   well" — "Fourth    well    drilled" 313 

"Mineral"     362 


123  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions, 

DEFINITIONS — Continued. 

Section 

"Discover"    oil 367 

"Commercial    lease" 352 

"Franchise" 428 

"From  and  after"  a  certain  date 432 

"Discovery" 433 

"Royalty"    434 

"Full  and  complete  abstract" 435 

"Condition"   and   "limitation"    distinguished 342 

"Mining-"     115 

"Surface" 117 

"Owner  of  land" 119 

"Dedication"     124 

"Completion   of  well" — "Completed   well" 136,  276 

"Consideration"    144 

"Mining   Partnership" 146 

"Lease"     173 

"License"   173 

"Filing"  an  instrument 198 

"Commence  drilling" 217 

"Development" 218 

"Willful    trespassers" 415 

"Operations  for  drilling" 220 

"Waiver"  and  "estoppel"  distinguished 370 

"Reservation"    in    deed 246 

"Mercliantable"  or  "marketable"  title 381 

"Exception"  in  deed 246,  270 

"More  or  less" 247 

"Payment"     389 

"Quit-claim  de;d" 256 

"Exhaustion"   of  minerals 408 

"By"  a  certain  date 265 

"Gas   from  oil   well" 280 

"Well" 276 

"Prevent  a  forfeiture" 277 

"Locality" — "Vicinity"     29t 

DELIVERY — 

Of  deed  from  husband?  to  wife 261 

Want  of,  as  affecting  innocent  purchaser  rule 424 

DEMAND — 

Wihen  prerequisite   to  forfeiture 430 

DEPOSITORY — See,  Banks, 

Bank  is  agent  of  lessor 114 

Consolidation  of,  bank  with  another 196 


124  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

DESCRIPTION — 

Section 

N'ecessary,  in  reservation 79 

Effect  of  omission  of 152 

What   is   sufficient,    in   deed   or   contract 248 

DEVELOPMENT — See,  Assignment,  Discovery, 
Implied  Obligations,  Performance, 
Temporary  Cessation. 

Breach  of  contract  for,  not  excused  by  (try  lioles 440 

By    cotenant 22 

State  of,  necessary  to  extend  term 285 

Diligence  where  no  time  fixed  for 26 

iDuty  to  develop  as  excused  by  payment  of  rental..  27,  50 

<i;essation   of,   as   affecting 28 

On  one  of  several  tracts  included  in  lease 410 

Should   be   allowed   to   proceed 38 

On  nearby  lands  does  not  satisfy  obligation   for 378 

Implied    obligation    for 33b,   94 

Lessor    in    u'efault    can    not    complain    of    non-develop- 
ment     193 

Kot  required  at   a  loss,  where  payment  to  be  made  out 

of  profits 350 

Measure   of  damages    for   non-development   in   absence 

of  drainage    194 

Excused  by  existence  of  lien 364 

What  is  such,  as  to  extend  lease 218 

Right  of  lessor  to  demand 94 

DRILLING — See  Contractors,  Definitions,  Development. 

Where  unneces  ary  operations  are  once  begun 344 

Where  rentals  not   required   and  no   time   fixed   for  de- 
velopment        26 

Implied  obligation  for,  after  discovery. 33a 

In  filing  suit,  when  action  is  for  recission   for  fraud.. 333 

DISCOVERY — ^See,  Definitions,  Performance. 

By   any  holder   vests   whole   title 31,  32.  76 

Well     becoming     exhausted'     does     not     affect     vested 

character  of  title 32 

On  any   tract   where   several  lessors 410 

On    any    tract    where   one   lessor 423 


125  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

DRAINAGE — 

Section 

Owner  may   drain   neighbor's   land 41 

Implied   obligation   to   prevent 33b 

Action  for,  ex  contractu  or  ex  delicto 49 

Character    and    amount    of    proof    necessary    to    show 

right  to  recover  for 50 

Whether  lessee  must  protect  against,  where  rentals  are 

paid 56 

DRILLING — See  Contractors,  Definitions,  Development. 

Implied  obligation  after  failure  of  one  well 33e 

Casing  off  slight  production  for  better  flow 76 

Restrictions  imposed  by  R.  R.  Commission 113 

May  not  be  compelled  by  specific  performance 140 

When,   entends   term 218 

E. 
EJUSDEM  GENERIS — 

As  applied  to  a  grant  of  minerals 78 

Election    of    remedies 74 

EQUITABLE  RELIEF — See,  Estoppel,  Forfeit- 
ure, Injunction,  Rescission,  Restora- 
tion, Reformation,  Specific  Perform- 
ance. 

ESCROW — 

When  deed  in,  is  effective 361 

Can   be,   only   where   binding   contract 164,   165 

Garnishment  of  money  in 423 

Lease   on    homestead    placed"   in,    may   be   retracted   by 

wife 189 

Effect  of  placing  a  contract  in  escrow 374 

ESTOPPEL — ^See,  Surrender. 

By  election  of  remedies 74 

By  acceptance  of  rentals 90,   95,   104,   168,   213,   274,  341 

Effect    of    lessor    taking    time    to    Investigate    before 

signing  lease    145 

Extension  of  time  as  constituting 371 

Of  owner,  where  his  land  sold  by  another  without  his 

objection     180 

Distinguished    from    waiver 370 

Of  lessor  to  claim  time  essential  in  payment  of  rentals  287 
Of  lessee,  to  assert  his  title  must  be  based  on  affirm- 
ative acts,  etc 349 

Of  lessor  to  claim  lease   terminated 439 


126  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions, 

evidence — 

Section 

Unproven  bank  deposit  slips 151 

Of  offer  from  another  in  suit  for  damages  on  account 

of  fraud   186 

In   action   for   fraud,   of  similar  acts 187 

Uncontradicted,  of  interest  witness  is  not  conclusive.  .195- 

Parol,  not  admissible  to  vary  terms   of  contract 40? 

Extrinsic,  to  explain  ambiguitj^ 71 

EXECUTORS  AND  ADMINISTRATORS — 

Right  to  lease  or  .sell  land  for  oil  purposes lOS 

EXHAUSTION — See,  Implied  Obligations. 

Of  discovery   well   does   not  affect   vested  character   of 

title   .'?  ? 

What   is 40& 

EXPIRATION — 

Of    indeterminate    lease 

F. 

FORFEITURE — See,  Definitions,  Implied  Obli- 
gations, Injunction,  Rescission,  "Waiver. 

Rights  after,  for  failure  to  pay  rental & 

Distinguished  from  abandonment 23 

As  affected   by    temporary   cessation 28 

Lessor's  declaration  of,  by  conveyance  of  land 29 

Waiver  of,  how  may  be  done 30,   185,   274 

Time  as  of  essence  of  contract 4.! 

"Unless"  and  "or"  lease  distinguished.  .44,  62,  128,  129,  157 

Whether  "unless"   clause  creates  an  option 6* 

For   failure   to   pay   rentals 43,   45,   128,   234,   269 

Where  default   in   rental   payment   is   caused  by   delay 

in  mails 51 

Where  default  in  rental  payment  is  caused  by  accident 

or    mistake 63 

Of  assignment,  governed  by  rules  for,  of  lease 410 

Is  not  abhorred  by  equity 64 

"Conditions"   and    "covenants"   distinguished 65,   73 

Provision    for,    may   be  waived   by   lessor 269 

Can  not  be  based  on  ambiguous  provision 71 

Right  of  re-entry  essential   to,   at   common   law 83 

For  commission  of  waste 97 


-c 


127  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

FORFEITURE — Continued. 

Section 
May  not  be  declared  by  one  who  has  sold  his  interest. .  99 
May  not  be  declared"  in  absence  of  express  provision.  .103 
Strict  construction  wlien  forfeiture  claimed  for  breach     ' 

of  condition  subsequent 212 

Waived  if  not  claimed 213 

Only  grantor  and  heirs  can  take  advantage  of  breach  of 

condition  subsequent 214 

Purchaser  of  part  of  land  leased  may  not  claim,  unless 

lease  may  be  forfeited  as  to  whole  tract 222,   268 

Can    not    be    claimed    as    to    any    assignment    if    some 

assignee  pays  sufficient  rental  to  hold  lease 227 

Xiessor's  transferee  has  no  greater  right  to  claim  than 

lessor    231 

Distinguished    from    cancellation    for    breach    of    con- 
tract     232,   233,   269 

As  affected  by  Soldiers'  and'  Sailors'  Civil  Relief  Act.. 266 

As  to  part  of  land  only 268 

As  affected  by  past  acceptance  of  overdue  rentals.  ..  .274 
Least    favored,    that    based    on    delay    in    payment    of 

money 275 

Once  fixed,  can  not  be  prevented 277 

For   failure   to   develop 94 

Demand   for  performance  prerequi-iie  to,   where  estate 

held'   on    condition    subsequent 430 

G. 

GARNISHMENT — 

Of  money  in  escrow 423 

GASOLINE — See,  Injunction. 

Extraction  of.  from  gas  as  affecting  liability  of  leasee.  .162 

GUARDIAN  AND   WARD — 

Validity  of  statute  authorizing  lease  beyond  minority.  .100 

Right  of  guardian  to  execute  lease 107 

Necessity  of  order  of  court  authorizing  surface  lease.  .309 

H. 

HOMESTEAD — 

Lease  on 21,  189 

Specific  performance  of  contract  to  convey 163 

Lease  on,  placed  in  escrow  may  be  retracted^  by  wife..  189 


128  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

HUSBAND  AND  WIFE — See,  Escrow. 

Section 
Rights    of   community    survivor    in    case    of    death    or 

insanity    254 

Delivery  of  deed  from  husband  to  wife  not  necessary.  .261 

I. 

IMPLIED  OBLIGATIONS — 

To  minimize  damages  from  acts  of  sub-lessee 11 

To  develop 26,   27,   33c,  56,   57,   69,   94,   198,   194,   230 

To  continue  operations  after  discovery 33a 

To  prevent  drainage  by  offset  wells 33b,   49,  56 

To     market 33d 

To  drill  after  failure  of  one  well 33e 

To   drill,   pay   or  surrender 47 

To  exhaust  land  of  mineral 315 

To    develop    after    expiration 317 

..^JUNCTION — See,  Lessee. 

WTien   temporarj",   should   be   granted 39 

When   permanent,   shouldr  be   granted 150 

Against  operations,  in   favor  of  adjacent  land  owner..  105 

Against  spoliation  of  graveyard 125 

Power  of  judge  to  issue,  without  bond 147 

As  between  adverse  lessees,  when  there  is  no  produc- 
tion     148 

Against  continued  drilling  under  lease 409 

Against  conjectural  damages  and  abstract  wrongs 149 

"Where  possession  taken  with  consent  of  owner,  tem- 
porary injunction  will  not  issue  to  transfer  posses- 
sion     245 

By    lessor   against    operations,    as    extending    time    for- 

development    262 

By  lessee,  against  interference  by  lessor 314 

To  prevent  interference  with  the  taking  of  casing- 
head    gas 332 

'To  enforce  forfeiture 420 

INNOCENT  PURCHASER — 

Dry  hole  is  not  performance  required  to  vest  title....    55 

Right  to  rely  on  notary's  certificate 130 

Rights  of,  as  affected  by  distinction  between  reserva- 
tion  of  mineral   and   of  right   to   explore 235 

Though  purchaser  has  knowledge,  he  succeeds  to  riglits 

of   grantor   who   liad   not 240 

Of  community   property,    from   surviving   husband.  ..  .241 


129  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

INNOCENT  PURCHASER — Continued. 

Section 

Want  of  delivery  of  deed  as  affecting  rule 424 

Whether  one  may  be,  of  oil  and  gas  lease 249,   252 

Cancellation  of  pre-existinfe  debt  as  consideration  sup- 
porting plea  of 427 

Of  lease  may  rely  on  statement  in  recorded  instrument 

that  consideration  was  paid 267 

Of  lease  need  not  inquire  as  to  payments  by  holder  not 

of    record     279 

Action  lies  against  party  conveying  to,  where  grantor 

has    notice    321 

Character  of  assignment  requisite  to  support  plea  of.. 329 
No  innocent  purchaser  under  altered  instrument  where 
title  depends  on  alteration 340 


JUDICIAL  NOTICE — 

Of  discovery  and  valuableness  of  gas 354 

L. 
L.  R.  A.  ANNOTATIONS — 

List  of 9 

LEASE — See,  Construction,  Deeds,  Description, 
Lessee,  Lessor,  Unilateral. 

Expiration  of  indeterminate 1 

Subdivision   of  land   covered   by,   as   affecting  royalties 

14,     19.  36 

On    homestead 21 

Construed   favorably  to   lessor 25 

Unilateral,    annulled    by    conveyance    of    lessor    before 

performance    29 

Becomes  vested  by  any  discovery 31 

May  not  cover  roads 40 

Binds   lessee   to  drill,   pay   or  surrender 47 

Whether,  includes  production  existing  at  date  of  lease.  60 

Silent  as  to  minerals  is  for  surface  only. 82 

Necessity  to  name  all  grantors  in  lease 291 

Binds  lessor,  though  erecuted  in  ignorance  of  terms..  89 
As   authorizing  payment   of  rental    on   part   of  land   in 

event  of  assignment 96 

Distinguished    from    license 173 

Obligation   of,   under  "unless"   clause 44 


130  Texx\s  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

LEASE — Continued. 

S'ection 

Must  be   in   writing 175 

Right  of  lessee  to  remove  property 204,  288 

Payment  of  rentals  is  acceptance  of,  by  lessee 219 

Purchaser  of  part  of  land  covered   by,   not   entitled   to 

forfeit  unless  whole  lease  forfeitable 222 

Effect  of  "More  or  less" 247 

Whether,   confers   legal   or  equitable   title 252 

Length  of  term  never  determinative  of  validity 273 

LESSEE — ■See  Surrender. 

May   lessee   sublet   without   landlord's    consent 346 

Duty  to  minimize  damages  from  acts  of  sub-lessee.  ...    11 

May,  sue  in  trespass  to  try  title? 15 

Commingling    of  ^product    by 20 

Is  bound  to  drill,  pay  or  surrender 47 

Obligation  to  pay  rentals 48 

"Assigns"    the    "lease" 53 

Is    agent    of   lessor,    as    pertaining    to    accounting    for 

royalties 38.'? 

Title  not  vested  by  completion  of  non-productive  well. .    55 

Rights  in  production  existing  at  time  of  lea«e 60 

May  not  use  leased  premises  for  development  of  other 

premises     384 

Conflicting  obligations  of,  under  contracts  with  adjoin- 
ing mineral  interest  owners 437 

Duty  of,  to  clear  record  after  lease  expires 443 

Riglit  of,   to  use  surface 270 

Determines  whether  production   in   paying  quantities.  .102 

Duty  to  report  prod'uction 109 

Relative  rights  of  coal  le.ssee  and  oil  lessee 4  26 

Is,    an    "owner    of    land"? 119 

•  Liability  of,  for  gasoline  extracted  from  gas 3  62 

Riglit  to  remove  property 204,  288 

May    do    whatever   necessary    to    make    operation    suc- 
cessful     2?" 

Right  to  stimulate  flow  of  oil  whicli   reduces  gasoline 
production    where    lessee    has    contracted    to    deliver 

gas   for  gasoline  purposes 334 

Not  obliged  to  carry  operations  beyond  point  profitable 

to    him 336 

Right  to  .stimulate  flow  of  gas  so  as  to  reduce  rents.. 422 

LESSOR — 

"Transfers"  the  "reversion" 53 

Rights    under    surrender    clause 48,   54,   59,   390 

Rights  in  production  existing  at  time  of  lease 60 

Effect    of,    taking    time    to    investigate    before    signing 
lease    .145 


131  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

LESSOR — Continued. 

S'ection 
May   use  premises   so   as   not   to   interfere   with    opera- 
tions     399 

Joint,    as    necessary    party 171 

Defaulting,   may  not  complain   of  non-development.  .  .  . 

193,     202,   262 

Transferee  of,  has  no  greater  rights  to  claim  forfeiture 

than 231 

Prevention  of  operations  by,  as  extending  term 262 

Amount  of  gas,  may  use  for  domestic  purposes 280 

LIENS — ^^See,  Mortgages. 

Laborer's  and'  materal  men's,  on  property  of  lessor  and 

lessee    25& 

As  excusing  delay  in  development 364 

LIFE  TENANTS — 

Who  may  drill  for  oil  and  who  may  not 93 

LIMITATION — See,  Adverse  Possession,  Deeds. 

Whether  title  based  on,   is  marketable 3SI 

Adverse  possession   of  mineral   and   surface   rights....    52 

Forged   or  defective   deed   as    affecting 223 

When  action  to   cancel    for   fraud   is   barred 253 

When  action  to  cancel  for  mistake  is  barred 253 

Does    not    run    against    wife's    suit    to    cancel    lease    on 
homestead    369 

LI8-PENDEN8— 

Time   from   which,   is   notice 215 

M. 
MAILS — 

Delay  in,  causing  default  in  rental  payment 51 

MARKETABLE  TITLE — See,  Definitions. 

MARKETING— 

Implied   obligation    for 33d 


132  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

MEASURE  OF  DAMAGES — 

Section 
For  development  by  assignee  under  void  assignment.  .319 
For  failure  to  comply  with   agreement  to  make  proper 

test    61 

For  injury  to  a  leasehold"  estate 404 

For  breach   of  contract  to  drill  a  well 376 

For  extraction  of  oil   from   land  of  another 77 

In   suit   to   establish    resulting   trust   or   to   rescind   for 

fraud 183 

For  prevention  of  drilling 426 

For  non-development  in  absence  of  drainage 194 

For  non-development  where  there  is  drainage 324 

For  breach    of  contract  to   lease 431 

MISTAKE-^ 

As   affecting  default   in    rental   payment 63,  75 

Unilateral,   as   affecting   right   to   rescind 121 

MORTGAGES — See,  Liens. 

Lien  of  mortgagee,  when  superior  to  that  of  partner.. 411 

Effect  of,  on  royalties  and  rents 137 

Mortgagee  must  pay  rentals 406 

N. 
NOTARY   PUBLIC — 

Conclusiveness  of  certificate  of  acknowledgment 130 

Defective    statement    of    venue    in    scilicet    of    acklowl- 
edgment     184 

NOTICE — See,  Demand,  Innocent  Purchaser,  Registra- 
tion. 

To  proceed  with  development 1 

When   possession  is  not 72 

Time  from  which  lis  pendens  is 214 

When   possession   is 216 

Is  reference  in  a    recorded  deed  notice? 242 

What  record  is  notice  of 243 

Is  record  of  assignment  by  lesisee  notice  to  lessor?.  . .  .394 
Upon    whom,    to    proceed    with    development    may    be 

served 417 

Time  from  which,   of  forfeiture   is   effective 355 


133  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

o. 

OIL   AND   GAS — 

S'ection 

Commingling  of,  by  lessee 2( 

In  paying  quantities 3S 

Owner's  riglit  to  production  existing  at  time  of  lease.  .    6C 

Are  minerals   and  real  property 80 

May    be    severed 158 

Escape  of,  permitted  by  pipe  line  company  as  basis  of 

damage 397 

Contract  to  deliver  unproduced,  must  be  in  writing. . .  .174 

Rights   of  adjoining  owners   as   to   pumping  oil 208 

Ownership  of  fugitive 209 

Amount  of  gas  lessor  may  use  for  domestic  purposes.  .280 

OWNER — See,  Parties,  Royalties. 

Rights  of  adjacent,  as  to  pumping  oil 208 

Of  land,  whether  lessee  is 119 

Of  fugitive  oil 209 

Of  reversion  is  entitled  to  rent 251 

Of  mineral,   not   responsible   for   waste   to   surface   by 

third  person 278 

Rights  of,  of  mineral  and,  of  surface  compared 292 


PARTIES  TO  ACTIONS — 

Surface    owners    in    boundary    suit    between     mineral 

owners    387 

Organization  of  joint  stock  company  as  affecting 133 

Joint  lessor  as  necessary  party 171 

Defect  of,  when  may  be  availed  of 172 

"Who  are  necessary 412 

Where,   in  suits  against  trustees,   beneficiary  need  not 

be  joined 197 

Co-tenants  as  necessary 264 

Subsequent   lessees   as   necessary 290 

PARTITION — 

Of  rights  in  oil  and  gas  in  place 13,  106 

Effect  of,  of  leased  land 18 

PARTNERSHIPS — 

When    are   individuals    partners    In    oil    and    gas   lease 

matters 40 1 

Mining,  discussed  andf  distinguished 146,   263 

Corporation  may  not  enter 263 


134  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

PAYING  QUANTITIES — 

S'ection 

I>efined    35 

Lessee,    when    in    good    faith,    may    determine    whether 
production    is    in 102 

PAYMENT — See,        Definitions,        Production, 
Rental,  Royalties. 

PERFORMANCE — See,  Development,  Discovery. 

Several    tracts    do    not    necessitate    performance    as    if 

lease  existed  on  each  tract 33& 

Non-prod»ictive  v/ell  vests  no  title 55 

By  any  assignee  vests  title 31 

By  third  party,  sufficient 322 

Failure  in,  is  not  excused  by  vis  major 283 

PERMITS — 

Classification  of  land  as  affecting   validity  of 299 

Relinquishment  of,  equivalent  to  abandonment 316 

PIPE  LINES — See,   Oil   and   Gas. 

Companies  reg-ulated,  made  common  carriers Ill 

May   require  indemnity  bond'  when   transporting  oil   in 

litigation    112 

Right  of  to  store  own  oil  to  exclusion  of  public 363 

PLEADING — See,  Actions,  Election  of  Remedies, 
Restoration,  Tender. 

May  lessee  sue   in   trespass   to  try   title 15 

Improvements   in   good   faith   in   action   to  cancel 4  2 

Character  of  action   in  suit  for  drainage 49 

Essential  allegations  in  suit  for  drainage 50 

As  determined  by  covenant  or  condition 73 

When  necessary  to  offer  to  restore ..85,   86,   131 

In  rescission   for  inadequacy  of  consideration 118 

Right  of  plaintiff  to  show  real  motive  in  giving  lease.  .143 

In   rescission   for   fraud 156,   191 

In    suit    to    compel    specific   performance   of   oral    con- 
tract     , 224 

Necessity  to  allege  fraud  as  a  conclusion 33» 


135  Texas  Oil  AND»  Gas  Decisions.  ' 

POSSESSION — 

Section 

When,   is   not   constructive    notice 72 

When,   is   constructive  notice 216 

Taken   with   consent  of  owner  will   not  be  transferred 

by    temporary    Injunction 245 

Of  minerals,  how  may  be  taken 52 

POWERS— 

To  "sell"  does  not  include,   to  "exchange" 126 

PRACTICE — See,  Evidence. 

Submission  of  immaterial  question  harmless  error.... 201 

Bill  of  exception   to  order  refusing  continuance 188 

Right  to  file  trial  amendment 257 

PRINCIPAL  AND  AGENT— 

Must  authority  of  agent  to  sell  lancf  be  in  writing?.  .  .  .173 
Disclosed  and  undisclosed  principal  in  contract  to  sell.  .179 

PRODUCTION — See,    Development,    Discovery, 
Performance. 

Casing  ofE  slight,  for  better  flow 76 

Where  payment  is  to  be  made  out  of,  what  is  required. 350 

R. 

RAILROAD  COMMISSION — ^See  Casing. 

Invested  with  power 110 

Pipe  line  company  may  require  indemnity  bond  when.. 112 
Drilling  restrictions 113 

RECEIVERS — 

When,  may  replace  trustee 134 

When,   will  be  appointed  ex  parte 135 

REFORMATION — 

When,   will  be  decreed 226 


136  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

REGISTRATION — See,    Notice,    Innocent    Pur- 
chaser. 

S'ectioit 

Oil  and  gas  leases 2 

Assignment  of  rentals 3 

WTien   is   an    instrument   "filed"? 198 

Priority  of  instruments  filed  contemporaneously 199 

"UTilch    prevails   as   to   remote   grrantee,   prior  filing   or 

prior   deed 239- 

First    bona   fide   vendee   to   record    deed    gets    title   ....244 

RELEASE — ^See,  Surrender. 

Placing     instrument     of,     on     record     witliout     lessor's 

knowledge    441 

By  president  of  corporation  not  paying  franchise  tax.. 347 

RENTALS^See,  Banks,  Forfeiture,  Tender,  Time. 

Assignment  of,   not  to  be  recorded ? 

Liability    for 7,   260 

Rights  after  forfeiture  for  failure  to  pay 8 

Payment   of,    as   excusing   development 27,  56 

Obligation  to  pay,  runs  with  land 34 

Payment  of,  at  time  provided  is  essential 43 

Must  be  paid  by  mortgagee 406 

Check  is  not  cash  in  advance 46 

Payment  by  check  is  good  if  bank  accepts 67,  141 

Payment    by    dishonored    check    not    good 226 

Failure  to  pay,  as  ground  for  forfeiture 45,   128 

Obligation   of  lessee   to   pay 48 

Delay  in  mails  causing  default  in  payment  of 51 

Recoverability    of,    under   "unless"    and   "or"    lease.  . .  . 

44,  62,   68 

Accident  or  mistake  in  making  payment 63,  75 

Recoverability  of,  as  affected  by  absence  of  surrender 

clause   68 

Acceptance   of,   as   an   estoppel 90,    95,  104 

When  payable,  where  no  time  stipulated 91 

Right  to  pay,  on  part  of  land  only 96 

May  be  paid  by  any  party  at   interest 395,   227 

Acceptance  of,  by  lessor  to  detriment  of  tliird  parties.  .104 
Deposit  or  tender  into  bank  named  protects  lessor.  . .  .114 
•Need"  not  be  tender  where  lessor  repudiates  contract .  .127 

Rights  of  mortgagee  in 137 

Lessee   who   assigns   not   liable   for 34 

Due  on  S'unday  may  be  paid  on  ^londay 138 

Payment  of,   can   not  be  .shown   by   unproven   bank   de- 
posit slip 151 

Acceptance  of,  validates  ntidum  pactum 168 

Liquidation    of,   by    development 445 


137  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

RENTALS — Continued. 

Section 
Payment    of,    where    depository    bank    has    consolidated 

with   another  bank 196 

Payment  of,  is  acceptance  by  lessee 219 

Right  to  pay,  on  part  only,  implied  in  right  to  assign.  .228 

Necessity  of  paying  rental  pendente  lite 301 

Right  to  pay  quarterly  rentals  one  year  in  advance.  . .  .320 

Right  to   recover  rentals   paid 385 

Right    to    pay,    on    one    assigned    part    not    applicable 

where  several  assignments  converge  in  one  holder.  .223 
Payment  of,   to   one  co-tenant  binds  all   in  absence  of 

dtemand 238 

Owners  of  reversion  are  entitled  to 251 

Payment  of  by  check  must  reach  bank  by  due  date. . .  .271 
Past  acceptance  of  overdue,  as  waiving  requirement  to 

promptly    pay 274 

Payment  of,  after  production  ceases 281 

RESCISSION — ^See,  Forfeiture,  Pleading. 

Right  of  re-entry  essential  to,  at  common  law 83 

When  necessary  to  offer  to  restore 85 

For  inadequacy  of  consideration 118,  142 

On   ground   of  mistake 121 

On   ground   of  misrepresentation 132,   192 

Parol   rescission    of   deed 372 

Right  of  plaintiff  to  .show  real  motive  in  giving  lease.  .143 

On   ground   of  fraud ^56,   191 

On  ground  of  concealment 373 

Measure  of  damage  where,  is  sought  for  fraud 183 

Necessity   of  notice,   where  part   performance 337 

For  breach  of  promise  amounting  to  consideration. ..  .190 

On  ground  of  false   or   fraudulent  promise 191 

On    ground    of    insanity 205 

On    ground    of   duress 237 

By  vendor,  on  strength  of  superior  title 312 

RESERVATION — 

Of  minerals  in  deed 10,  116 

Description    necessary    in 79 

In  deed,  will  be  limited  to  use  intended 139 

Distinction    t-etween,    of   minerals   and    of   right   to   ex- 
plore,   as    affecting    subsequent    purchaser.s 235 

Distinguished    from    exception,    as    bearing   on    disposi- 
tion of  property  on  grantor's  death 246 

RESTORATION — 

Wlien    necessary   to   restore 85,   131 

"Whether  term  divisible  as  affecting,  of  rental.s 86 

Where  Impossible  to  make 206 


138  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

ROADS — 

S'ection 
May  not  be  leased" 40 

ROYALTIES — See,  Definitions,  Lessor. 

Division  of,  after  subdivision  of  land  leased.  .14,  19,  36,   222 
Assignment   of,    by   one    holder   as    affecting   remaining' 

interests 16 

Payment    of,    accruing    before    transfer 17 

Rights    of    mortgagee    in 137 

To  be  paid  out  of  first  "profits"  do  not  require  develop- 
ment at  a  loss 350 

Transfer  of,  not  interest  in  landf 3 

Lessee  who  assigns  need"  not  pay 34 

S. 

SEVERANCE — See,  Oil  and  Gas. 

SIGNATURE^ 

Omission    of,      of   joint    owner 5,   22 

Binds    grantor    though    ignorant    of    terms 89 

SPECIFIC  PERFORMANCE — 

To  deliver  product  from  or  interest  in  mines 12 

Will    not   lie    to    compel    drilling 140 

Will  not  lie  to  compel  conveyance  of  homestead 163 

When  action   is  for,  and  when   for  damages 181 

Plaintiff   seeking,   must   not   be   guilty   of   bad    faith    or 

laches    202 

Showing  necessary  for,  of  oral  contract   to  convey.  ..  .224 

STALE  DEMAND — 

Wlien     plea  of,  good 235 

STATUTE  OF  FRAUDS — See,  Surrender. 

Parol   proof   of   verbal    surrend'er 358 

Escrow  lease  not  binding  lessee  invalid  under 165 

Agreement  to  deliver  oil  or  gas  to  be  produced  within.  .174 

Lease  must  be  in  writing 175 

Assignment  of  lease  must  be  in  writing 176 

Contract  for  assignment  must  be  in  writing 177 

Parol    agreement    to    convey    or   pay    damages 368 

Authority   of  agent  to   sell   land 178 

\\'"hen   oral  contract   to   convey  v/ill   be  enforced 224 

Requisites    of   contract    under 438 


139  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

STATUTES — See,  Statute  of  Frauds. 

Section 
Conservation    law    authorizing    R.    R.    Commission    to 

make     orders 110 

Pipe  line  companies  regulated,  made  common  carriers.  .111 
Soldiers'  and  Sailors'  Civil  Relief  Act 266 

SUB-LESSEE — See,  Assignment. 

SUB  LETTING — 

WTiether  permissible 346 

SURFACE — 

May  be  used  by  lessee 436 

Defined   117 

Lease  silent  as  to  minerals  is  for 82 

Owner  of,  may  not  complain  of  drilling 92 

Rights   of  owner   of,   comparedr  with    rights    of   owner 
of  minerals 292 

SURRENDER,     SURRENDER     CLAUSE — See, 
Release. 

General  manager  of  coal  company  has  no  implied'  au- 
thority  to    surrender 382 

Supported    by    nominal    consideration 37 

May  not  be  required  by  lessor 393 

Rights  of  lessor  under 54,   59 

Kind  of  instrument  nece-sary  to  accomplisli  .surrender. 386 

Absence  of,   as   affecting  recoverability   of  rentals 68 

Lease  may  be  surrendered  orally 358 

"Unless"  clause  as  authorizing  surrender 390 

T. 
TAXATION — 

AVTien  mineral  interests  may  be  taxed 400 

TEMPORARY  CESSATION — 

Does  not  subject  lease  to  forfeiture 28 

Does  not  prevent   title  being  vested 76 

TENDER — 

Refusal  of,  on  one  ground  is  waiver  of  others 327 

Payment   into  court  permits   appellate  court   to   render 

rather  than  remand 32S 

Mere  statement  of  readiness  to  pay  is  not  plea  of.  ...343 


140  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

TERM— 

S'ection 

Estoppel  of  lessor  to  claim,  ended 439 

Of    indeterminate    lease 1 

Effect  of  .surrender  clause,   at   lessor's   option 54,  59 

Whether  divisible,  as  requiring  re-payment  of  rentals 

in    action    to    cancel 86 

Exclude  first  and  include  last  day 101 

When,  may  be  extended  by  drilling 218 

Whether    extended    by    prevention     of    operations    by 

lessor    262 

Lease  expires  at  end  of,  unless  extended  by  production. 405 

Excessive,  does  not  affect  validity 273 

Necessary  state  of  production  or  operations  to  extend, 

beyond  statecT  time 285 

TIME — See,  Abandonment,  Term. 

For  drilling  second  well 445 

Extension   of,   inures   to   benefit   of   various  holders   of 

lease    371 

Is  of  essence  of  lease  contract  in  absence  of  contrary 

stipulation     43 

For  payment  of  rental  where  no  time  stipulated 91 

Where    rental    due    date    falls    on    Sunday,    payment   on 

Monday    good 138 

Effect   of   lessor    taking,    to    investigate   before   signing 

lease    145 

Extension  of,  for  completion  of  well,  strictly  construed. 311 

Time  of  "filing"  instrument  for  record 198 

Where,    essential    vis    major    will    not    excuse    non    per- 
formance     283 

TITLE — See,  Deeds,  Definitions,  Innocent  Purchaser, 
Marketable  Title,  Registratioa. 

Waiver  of  objections  to  abstract  cf 435 

Oil  and  gas  lease  is  cloud  upon 379 

Not  vested  by  completion  of  non-productive  well 55 

Meeting  objections  to,  under  contract  to  convey 375 

Become.s  vested  by  discovery 76 

Whether  lease  confers  legal  or  equitable 252 

After — acquired    255 

Not  affected  by  exhaustion  of  discovery  well 32 

TRESPASS  TO  TRY  TITLE — 

May   lessee  sue   in 15 

May  be  joined  with  action   to  cancel 154 


141  Texas  Oil  and  Gas  Decisions. 

TRUSTS  AND  TRUSTEES — 

Section 

Tenure  of  trustee  as  affecting  parties  to  actions 133 

When  trustee  may  be  replaced  by  receiver 134 

Resulting  trust  in  favor  of  vendor  where  conspiracy  to 

obtain   land  by   fraud 182,   183 

Where,  in  suits  against  trustees,   beneficiary  need  not 

be  joined 197 

Conveyance  establishing  trust  for  handling  of  property 
strictly  construed 281 

U. 

UNILATERAL  LEASES — ^See,  Consideration. 

Conveyance  by  lessor  before  performance  is  annuUment  29 

Illustrations 159 

Whether  usual  lease  is  unilateral 250 

V. 
VENUE — 

Of  suit  to  cancel  lease  confering  interest  in  land 296 

Of  suit  for  value  of  severed  minerals 360 

VIS  MAJOR— 

Will  not  excuse  non-performance  where  time  essential. 283 
As  affecting  diligence 286 

W. 
WAIVER — ^^See,  Tender. 

By   lessor,   as   binding   Iiis   transferee 231 

Of  objections  to  abstract 435 

Of   forfeiture,   how   may   be   done 30,   185,   274 

Of  breach    distinguished   from,   of  forfeiture 30 

Of  breach    requires   consideration 282 

WASTE — 

;Severance  and  removal,  when 81 

As    ground    for    forfeiture 97 

Jklineral  owner  not  responsible  for,  to  surface  by  third 

person 278 

Opening  new  and  working  old  mine  distinguished. ..  .284 

WILLS — 

Distinguished  from  deeds 365 


LAW  LIBRARY 
UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


A     000  678  599     2 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 

This  bocA  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


Form  L9-Series  4939 


